Ben Bradshaw: Well, it is six more sniffer dogs than any other EU member state has, and it is six more than this country had when the hon. Gentleman's party was last in power. We are spending £20 million more than his party spent on border controls of illegal imports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) has just reminded the House, we have also imposed a ban on the import of birds.

Jim Knight: The UK is part of the single market in which goods are traded across the European Union. The percentage of raw milk imported into the UK amounted to 0.45 per cent. of domestic production in 2004. Import tariffs for agricultural goods entering the UK from outside the EU are EU-wide and subject to World Trade Organisation rules.

Jim Knight: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable in these matters. We need to increase transparency and trust, and that is the work that Lord Bach is heading up through the forum.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is a very reasonable man. Does he not think it strange that in a country which has absolutely the right environment for milk production, where the grassland is the best in the world for milk production, dairy farmers, including those in my constituency, are going out of business because they cannot compete, not least because of the activities of the superstores to which my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) referred? Is it not possible for the Government to do more to assist the dairy farmer, because at the end of the day only productive farming can maintain the countryside?

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman is also a reasonable man, and I thank him for his question. A lot of the symptoms that he described in dairy farmers' operations are the reasons why there is a good long-term future for farming, because all the circumstances are right. Many people talk about the problems of supermarkets, which is why my noble Friend Lord Bach and I will next month meet Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the operation of the market, and particularly the role of the supermarkets.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is critical that Governments of all political colours do not make decisions that are either short term or which could make the situation even worse. We must take that into careful consideration when we make our announcement later this autumn. A difficulty highlighted by the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), who talked about targeting infected badgers, is that there is no way of telling whether a badger has TB until it is dead.

Oliver Letwin: On 15 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) assured the House that
	"All birds dying in quarantine must be tested for the presence of the avian influenza".—[Official Report, 15 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1049W.]
	However, the Department's epidemiology report shows that a total of 50 birds that died in quarantine were not examined. How does the Secretary of State explain the fact that her Department allowed a quarantine centre to fail to test birds that died in quarantine and to keep detailed records of the dates of death, when we have faced a clear threat to our biosecurity for two years?

Margaret Beckett: There may be a slight misunderstanding here. There has never been individual testing of all birds. Indeed, for many years the practice has been to pool samples, because it is convenient and because the interest in the past has always been in whether a whole consignment is infected—if disease is detected, the whole consignment is killed. I know that the House will understand that the Department must tread with particular care on the matter of incineration. The appropriate authority, which is the local authority, is conducting an investigation, and we were not in a position to say anything about that investigation without its agreement. It has now agreed that there should be mention of the fact that some of the birds died and were incinerated, because it is important to account for all the birds in the facility. However, I cannot say more to the House about an ongoing investigation.

David Davies: Does the Minister agree that one sure way of cutting down on food miles would be to cut back on the myriad petty rules and regulations that have closed down local abattoirs around the country? Will he commit to look into that?

Jim Knight: We continue to monitor the situation as regards local abattoirs because they are very important for farming and for sustainable management of the land, so we need to keep them open. I am working closely with the regional development agencies, led by Richard Ellis, the chair of the East of England Development Agency, to see what we can do to support that important service.

Bill Wiggin: I find it hard to accept the platitudes about cutting food miles when records show that the mileage of the Minister's own Departmental vehicles has accounted for a 40 per cent. increases in their carbon emissions. In the year to March 2003, DEFRA added 1,153 tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere—

Jeremy Browne: Great progress has been made in tackling the risk of flooding in Somerset and the Government deserve a share of the credit for that. [Hon. Members: "What?"] They do. However, Curry Moor in my constituency bears a disproportionate amount of flood water when there has been high rainfall. Will the Under-Secretary investigate that and ascertain whether the flood water in the flood-plains of the two rivers to which he referred—the Parrett and the Tone—could be better distributed in future to relieve the burden on Curry Moor?

Jim Knight: I am happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman but I understand that the increased water storage at Curry Moor in recent years is due to rainfall patterns not flood defence works. Clearly, if a reasonable plan fulfilled a cost-benefit analysis, we would consider it. However, it is important to understand the reason for a problem before undertaking such a plan.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unless the flood-plains of Somerset extend as far as Northampton, I cannot call the hon. Gentleman.

Tom Brake: The Secretary of State will undoubtedly have discussed with the DFT the Highways Agency's road building programme. Does she have a view on the DFT's projection that traffic on those roads will increase by a quarter, and on the fact that, for half of those schemes, no calculation has been made in terms of the increases in emissions?

Margaret Beckett: Certainly, we work closely with the Department for Transport on assessing the environmental impact of any proposals. I am slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's observation that a calculation of emissions is not always made, but that is less easy in some circumstances than in others, depending on the size and scale of the road scheme. Certainly, the Department for Transport takes its responsibilities seriously in this matter, as the House will be aware from the number of decisions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has announced over recent months that clearly reflect environmental as well as other concerns.

Jim Knight: Well, I can chase up any questions that the hon. Lady wants replies to. I know that she has been particularly keen to see a flood alleviation scheme for Thirsk. Hambleton district council previously promoted such a scheme, but has now decided not to continue with that, so the responsibility for the watercourse will transfer to the Environment Agency on 1 April next year. It will then incorporate the scheme into its investment planning programme. I know that the hon. Lady is robust in pursuing these matters and I am sure that she will continue to pursue them robustly with the Environment Agency, as well.

Sitting suspended.
	On resuming—

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing the business and—finally—giving us an update on the pre-Budget report.
	As the Leader of the House prepares the rest of the parliamentary timetable up to Christmas, will he make time for the House to debate and question Ministers on how we can tackle some of the absurd regulations and political correctness in our public services, which are making so many people say that Britain has gone completely barmy?
	Could we have an update from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the impact on council tax and local authority resourcing of the new regulations that require every piece of electrical work done in homes to be inspected by a local authority inspector? Will the Government tell us whether any authority has actually managed to conform to those rules?
	May we have a statement from a Home Office Minister about the guidance given to police forces on witness statements? Is the Leader of the House aware that a woman in Manchester who was injured in a hit-and-run accident was told off for describing the driver as "fat"? Apparently, the Greater Manchester police force follows an appropriate language guide. Is it not better to record the words of witnesses, and not to try to make them conform to official guidelines?
	Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the Data Protection Act 1998, following a case that came to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)? His constituent's car was vandalised by someone who was caught and cautioned by the police. However, because of the Act, the police would not reveal the name of the culprit, so my hon. Friend's constituent could not sue for damages and had to pay the bill himself.
	May we have a statement from a Transport Minister on the absurdly rigid rules that apply to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency? One of my constituents told me that the previous owners of her house had moved to Spain and were using their driving licences with the old address to obtain loans and other money fraudulently. However, the DVLA says that it cannot change the official records unless the fraudsters themselves notify it of a change of address.
	As the Leader of the House prepares the business for up to Christmas, will he take the time to make an unequivocal statement to the House on the importance of Christmas? Will he make it absolutely clear that local authorities that rename Christmas lights as "winter lights" and public sector bodies that downplay, or even cancel, Christmas to avoid upsetting minorities are more likely to damage community relations than help them? Is not the fact that that situation seems to get worse every year another example of Britain going barmy under this Government?

David Heath: Could we have a debate entitled "The Government understanding of urgency", with the subtitle, "How many Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions does it take to change a CSA?" Following the rather meandering reply that the Prime Minister gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) yesterday, is not it clear that something that urgently needed reform in 1998 has in fact not been reformed and is still hugely underperforming, and that it is time that we had a replacement for the Child Support Agency to stop our constituents being affected adversely?
	Notwithstanding the fact that the Identity Cards Bill is in another place, may we have a debate on the likely efficacy of identity cards in the light of the comments of Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, who said yesterday:
	"I don't think that anybody in the intelligence services, particularly in my former service, would be pressing for ID cards."
	She went on to say that the cards would be "absolutely useless". Knowing how important it is to listen to experts, may we have a debate on that matter?
	May we have a debate on employment policy in the light of the Pensions Commission's likely response—namely, to suggest an increase in the pension age? Is not it important that we do something to combat age discrimination in employment, to ensure that people have the opportunity to work in their late middle age to contribute to the economy?
	Lastly, may we have a debate on what on earth is going on in the Cabinet Office? Not only do we not have a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster after well over a week, we now have the letter from Sir Gus O'Donnell to Mr. Samson, at the publisher Weidenfeld and Nicholson, relating to Sir Christopher Meyer's book—which made for interesting reading, but was not entirely appropriate as a book. However, Sir Gus O'Donnell said that the Government had no comments to make about the proposed book. Is not that extraordinary?

Geoff Hoon: No one is suggesting that there is no room for improvement as far as the Child Support Agency, but I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that the CSA is dealing with about 1.4 million separate cases. About 511,000 cases are on a new system; 652,000 cases are on an older computer system; and 286,000 cases have been moved from the old system to the new system. That demonstrates that there has been significant change. Indeed, the Government's reform arrangements mean that whereas under the old scheme only about 50 per cent. of non-resident parents had a nil assessment, under the new scheme just under 90 per cent. pay at least £5 a week. The new, more streamlined system has meant that more parents are contributing. However, I am not suggesting to the House for a moment—neither was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday—that there are no further issues of reform, improvement and streamlining the system that do not need addressing. That is why there is a review, and it is why that review must improve still further the arrangements for child support.
	As for ID cards—[Interruption.] I am perfectly willing to answer only one of the questions, but the hon. Gentleman asked a number, as ever, and referred to Dame Stella Rimington's observations, in a personal capacity, about identity cards. Perhaps I could encourage hon. Members to read all the comments. I realise that, first thing in the morning, there is always a temptation simply to look at the headline or perhaps the first paragraph of the story, but Dame Stella's comments are rather more balanced than he suggested. She said that she felt that ID cards would have a purpose, providing that the technology was effective and that they could not be forged. That is clearly part of the Government's ambition and something that we have set out to the House on a number of previous occasions. If the hon. Gentleman wants to debate that again, I am sure that he can do so when the Identity Cards Bill returns to the House.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of pensions in the light of the forthcoming Turner report. I will not comment on leaked documents at this stage. I understand that the final report will be published on 30 November, and there is an issue that the country must address, not least because people are living longer. That is obviously something to be celebrated—something for which, I anticipate, the Government will claim credit—but we have a situation today where four people are in work for every person who has retired. That compares with 10 people for every one in work 50 years ago, and it compares with the prospect of only two people being in work in the future for every person who is retired. That inevitably means that we must have a review of pension arrangements to ensure that people can lead a decent, comfortable life in retirement. There are challenges—they are challenges for all hon. Members—and I hope that Members will approach them in that proper and sophisticated way.

Wayne David: In my parliamentary constituency some £47 million has been paid out in compensation to former miners and their families. They have received money in compensation for respiratory diseases and vibration white finger. I suspect that the position is equally good in other former coal mining areas. Can we have a debate at the earliest opportunity on what is essentially a success story?

Geoff Hoon: Certainly, that scheme has been a remarkable success in providing, at long last, for many people adversely affected by working in the mines, including many of my constituents. A total of £1.6 billion has been paid out in compensation for respiratory diseases, and £1.2 billion for vibration white finger—something that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House was extremely good at doing when he had responsibility for such issues. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer always thoroughly approved of the extremely efficient and effective way that the compensation was awarded, and it is something of which the Government can rightly be proud. It has dealt with the problem that had existed for a long time in the mining and former mining communities, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue.

Tim Boswell: As the Government appear to have run into a number of difficulties in their legislative programme last week, and subsequently Whitehall was briefing that each Bill was being scrutinised to see whether its effects could be carried either by statutory instrument, administrative action or other devices, may we have an early debate on the Government's legislative avoidance programme?

Ashok Kumar: Later today I will be attending the launch of the north-east process industry cluster, together with many other right hon. and hon. Members. It represents about 25 per cent. of the north-east economy, employs 34,000 people directly and 200,000 people indirectly, and 200 companies representing the north-east will be there today. It is a great success story for the chemical and pharmaceutical sector. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the cluster on its success and its launch? May we have an early debate on the Government's successful record in this regard?

Geoff Hoon: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the NEPIC. My hon. Friend has played a significant part in encouraging the development of the cluster arrangements. It is important that we continue to provide opportunities in manufacturing industry. As I know from my hon. Friend's background, the contribution of science and technology to the development of those world-beating industries is vital, and I congratulate him on his efforts.

Andrew MacKay: Why have Ministers been caught so offguard by the problems of the CSA, bearing in mind that they have had eight years to put it right? Why was the Prime Minister so waffly and confused yesterday, and why was the Leader of the House so complacent today? As constituency Members of Parliament, we find that an ever greater caseload of people has been let down by the CSA. When will something be done? When will the latest report into the CSA be published?

Owen Paterson: My constituent, Councillor Brian Gillow, of Hoarstone near Market Drayton, has for years taken in planings from nearby road repair schemes to mend his drive, which is about a mile long and very bumpy. He is incensed that he will now be charged £546 by the Environment Agency to register his drive as a landfill site. To add insult to injury, he has had a letter from the Environment Agency saying:
	"Your fee will not be returned if we refuse to register the activity."
	There is a huge scheme to mend the A41 just at the end of his drive. Under framework waste directive 75/442, the current regulations will mean that if Councillor Gillow does not stump up the £546, the local traffic will be disrupted and there will be more pollution as cartload after cartload of planings will be taken to a distant landfill site. May we please have a debate on the idiotic way these regulations have been imposed?

Geoff Hoon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the passion with which he raises individual constituency cases. I suspect that it reflects a contrast between the areas that Opposition Members represent, with mile-long drives, and the sort of constituency that is represented on this side of the House—[Interruption.] Under a Labour Government, of course, there will be more people with mile-long drives, and that is why I take very seriously—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has asked the Leader of the House a question and must allow him to answer it. Shouting repeatedly "He's a farmer" does not help.

Geoff Hoon: I must check in the relevant publications your occupation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you assumed your present responsibilities. I was not trying to cause the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) to become even more excited than he already was about the case that he raises, but I will look into it.

Iris Robinson: Can the Leader of the House assist hon. Members in next Wednesday's debate by making available the correspondence that the Government have received from the Attorney-General relating to the compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill?

Julie Morgan: I am pleased to hear that we now have a date for the Second Reading of the Health Bill, which is an important Bill. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider allowing a free vote for Labour Members on smoking in public places? I am sure that he is aware of the strength of feeling on that issue. Is it not just the sort of issue on which we should have a free vote?

Geoff Hoon: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady's final observation, not least because a careful and even-handed assessment is made of the way in which local authority finance is distributed—[Interruption.] Opposition Members scoff, but I have sat through several painful meetings in which we have considered carefully the way in which council tax support is distributed. It is a requirement of that distribution that it is done on an even-handed basis. Part of the differential that inevitably arises is because council tax support reflects the different social and economic problems faced in different areas. What the hon. Lady is really saying is that she lives in a relatively affluent area that is less in need of support than other areas. As a member of a party that is beginning to think about redistribution, I am sure that she would support that.

Eric Forth: Can we please have a debate entitled "The Loneliness of the Prime Minister"? The Leader of the House will recall—it is faithfully recorded in Hansard—that in Prime Minister's questions yesterday the poor Prime Minister was forced to say, with a desperate look on his face:
	"I am looking around the Chamber, but I am afraid I am not getting a great deal of help."—[Official Report, 16 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 969.]
	Nor was he, because the Cabinet were all facing the other way and Labour Back Benchers were sitting stony-faced, as they do almost every Wednesday these days. Can the Leader of the House confirm that such a debate would allow Labour Members to show how little support they are now giving to the Prime Minister and why that is the case?

Geoff Hoon: I am not going to go into detail about the precise security measures, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that such changes are made, above all else, in the interests of the security of Members, people who use the Palace of Westminster and individuals who work here. They are only made after considerable thought, but I will look at any practical problems that he raises with me.

Michael Gove: Will the Leader of the House kindly make time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the grotesque mismanagement of the European Union budget? He will be aware that, for the 11th year running, the auditors have failed to pass the EU budget. Whenever the opportunity arises to debate the matter, the powers that be have tended to throw it into the long grass—specifically, the peaceful pastures of European Standing Committee B. Can we have a proper debate in the Chamber with a Treasury Minister and a Foreign Office Minister to ask why 113 recommendations from the European Parliament and the 139 recommendations from the European Court of Auditors have not been implemented by the European Commission? Notwithstanding all the efforts of the former Commissioner, Neil Kinnock, whose time at the Commission culminated in the sacking of Marta Andreasen for whistleblowing, why under our EU presidency have we still not managed to ensure that the European Commission can spend British taxpayers' money honestly, fairly and competently?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's efforts to entertain us in a not-yet seasonal way, but he raised an important issue with which the Government are committed to deal. It is a priority for us to find ways of reducing the regulatory burden on business. Before he pokes gentle fun or otherwise at particular regulations, he should make it clear to the House which regulations he believes are unnecessary. Whenever we have this debate in the House, Opposition Members are good at saying how awful the regulatory burden is but poorer at saying which particular burdens should be lifted.

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, made a statement earlier on these matters and is in the House today to make a further statement about the importance that we attach to ensuring that defence expenditure is properly targeted on the front line and used most efficiently and effectively to support our armed forces. That means that, from time to time, there is a rationalisation—a change—in the distribution of our support activities across the country, but that is always done with a view to ensuring the maximum support that we can give to our armed forces. I am sure that, in due course, my right hon. Friend will deal with those issues when he addresses the House.

Philip Hollobone: Given that, of Britain's 78,000 convicted prisoners in jail, 10,000 are overseas nationals, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House about how he intends to address the £300 million annual cost of the exercise and whether he will present proposals to return to secured detention in their countries of origin the staggering number of convicted overseas criminals in our country?

Adam Ingram: I should like to inform the House about developments in the defence airfields review. As my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence told the House on 21 July 2004 in his statement on "Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities", a review of defence airfields is under way in order to ensure the best use of the defence estate.
	The review is taking the form of a series of business cases. Two of those have addressed the basing requirements for new aircraft—the joint combat aircraft and the Nimrod MRA4. I am pleased to inform the House today of my basing decisions for those aircraft. Those decisions will enable the detailed planning that precedes the introduction of new aircraft and facilitate wider estate rationalisation. We will consult the trade unions on this decision and the implications for civilian staff.
	The JCA is due progressively to replace the Harrier fleet towards the middle of the next decade and the Nimrod MRA4 is expected to replace the Nimrod MR2 from around the end of this decade. The state-of-the-art, multi-role JCA will provide significantly increased performance and improved strike and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as incorporating stealth technology. The Nimrod MRA4 will offer enhanced surveillance support over a greater area in both the land and maritime environments. Final procurement decisions will be taken in due course.
	The JCA basing study has been very thorough, including the widespread consultation of local authorities, and it considered a number of locations in two stages. On 10 March this year, I wrote to hon. Members affected by the outcome of the first stage, notifying them that RNAS Yeovilton, RAF Kinloss and RAF Wittering were discounted from further consideration. The study then concentrated on five locations—RAF Cottesmore in Rutland, RAF Leeming in North Yorkshire, RAF Lossiemouth in Moray, RAF Marham in Norfolk and RAF St. Mawgan in Cornwall. After careful consideration of the options, I have decided that the initial base for the JCA will be RAF Lossiemouth, currently home to the Tornado GR4, as it offers the most operationally satisfactory and cost-effective solution.
	As I said in March, our work made an assumption that two JCA bases would be required. However, since it is too early to say whether a second base will be needed after the Tornado GR4 fleet goes out of service, I have decided that only one base should be selected at this stage. Further work will be undertaken in the event that a second base is required, but we are still a number of years away from making that decision. The study shows that either RAF Cottesmore or RAF Marham would be appropriate for the second base. In any event, both these RAF stations have defined uses into the next decade and beyond, with Harriers at RAF Cottesmore and Tornado GR4s at RAF Marham. RAF Leeming, currently a Tornado F3 base, was ruled out as a possible second base because of the disproportionately high noise impact.
	RAF St. Mawgan was not selected because the business case demonstrated that it was an expensive option. I announced in March that that station would go into care and maintenance from April 2007 following the relocation of the Sea King helicopters currently based there. In the light of my decision on JCA basing, I can now confirm that there is no long-term RAF Strike Command requirement for the airfield. We shall therefore be considering alternative defence uses or possible disposal. The future basing of the remaining units at RAF St. Mawgan will also be considered.
	Turning to the Nimrod MRA4, I wrote to hon. Members in October 2004 to inform them that we were considering whether RAF Kinloss or RAF Waddington would be the most suitable base for the MRA4. RAF Kinloss is currently the base for the Nimrod MR2, while RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire is our primary ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—base. I subsequently advised the House in March 2005 that, irrespective of the outcome of the business case, we had decided to base the MRA4 initially at Kinloss as it would not be possible to prepare the necessary infrastructure at Waddington in time for the aircraft's arrival around the end of the decade.
	The business case has now shown that, while there would be some advantages in basing the MRA4 with the other ISTAR assets at Waddington, it would not justify the financial investment, and I have therefore decided that the MRA4 will remain at Kinloss. That decision does not change RAF Waddington's role as the primary ISTAR base. On current planning, I also expect RAF Kinloss to become a base for some Tornado GR4s from around 2013. The arrival of the JCA at RAF Lossiemouth will require at least some of the Tornado aircraft based there to be relocated to RAF Kinloss until the aircraft goes out of service in the mid-2020s.
	Those decisions form part of my Department's continuing efforts to rationalise our estate. Work is continuing and I will keep the House informed of developments. Today's announcement on JCA and MRA4 basing enables us to take work forward to begin to plan for the long-term infrastructure requirements of these key new capabilities. The choice of RAF Lossiemouth for the JCA and of RAF Kinloss for the Nimrod MRA4 confirms the long-term future for some 4,500 Ministry of Defence personnel and also safeguards a significant number of jobs in the Moray area. It is good news for the Moray area and underscores once again the MOD's commitment to Scotland.

Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for giving me advance notice of the statement. I would have thanked the BBC for the even-more-advanced notice that it would have given me had I been up at 6 am to read its online version, but sadly I was still fast asleep and unaware that a statement would be made.
	The central points of the statement are uncontentious. It is obviously sensible that the new Nimrods should primarily be focused on the base where the existing Nimrods have been deployed successfully for so long. It is also obviously sensible that the new JCA should be focused on one of the bases where the Tornados have similarly been based for so long. There are, however, some undercurrents to this statement about which we must be concerned—most importantly the resiling from the earlier, pretty firm commitment that the JCA would have two bases. What does that tell us about future orders for the JCA? Does it suggest that in fact, as in so many other defence projects, when those orders come to fruition they will be found to be quantitatively much smaller than was originally promised and intended?
	What does it tell us also about the thinking that is going on whereby numerous RAF bases appear to be scheduled for contraction? We heard that expression a couple of times in the statement in the context of wider estate rationalisation. I have reason to believe that St. Mawgan will not be the last base to close, by any means. It is clear from the statement that the reason that the choice was made not to put the Nimrods with the ISTAR Nimrods but to keep a separate base was not a strategic but an economic choice.
	My primary question for the Minister is this: what consideration has been given to the nature of the threats that will face us in the short, the medium and the long term? In the short and medium terms, there is the prospect of a terrorist threat. What happens if a terrorist attack is successful on an RAF base in which all the facilities for one particular type of function have been concentrated?
	In the medium to long term, we have to face up to the prospect, incredible though it may seem at the moment, that we might face a major war of a more conventional nature with a more conventional power. What prospect is there of the RAF being able to survive if its bases are vulnerable to attack because each individual role carried out by each separate part of the RAF is focused on a single site that, if put out of action, could mean that the RAF lost that function completely?
	I turn briefly to some specifics. What is the future of the air sea rescue function currently operating out of St. Mawgan? What assessment has been made of the effect on the local economy?
	What are the implications for the future of RAF Leeming? Reading between the lines of the statement, I would be a little concerned if my job depended on its having a long-term future.
	What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office on the security implications of the move towards reducing the number of bases so that more and more eggs are carried in fewer and fewer baskets?
	What assessment has been made, on a strategic basis, of the long-term military threat facing this country?
	Today's announcement has some central sensible elements, but it must be seen in the context of a continued hollowing out of the Royal Air Force, with the closure of Lyneham announced less than two months after the Prime Minister had told my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that it would have an assured future. As a result, heavy-lift equipment is now concentrated solely at a single base. Three Tornado squadrons have been scheduled for the future instead of the five called for by the strategic defence review. It has been announced that the Jaguar is to go out of service two years earlier than would be required if the Typhoon were able smoothly to take over its functions.
	In themselves, the announcements contain sensible elements, but as part of a wider picture they give us great cause for concern.

Adam Ingram: Let me try to deal with all the hon. Gentleman's major points.
	From what appeared on the BBC this morning, I had an idea, in broad terms, that the media had got hold of the information. I was not best pleased, as I do everything to ensure that I come to the House first with such information. I am not accountable for speculation.—[Interruption.] Someone says that it was on the media last Friday—I did not know that. The report suggested that Leuchars would feature in the statement, but it does not—that decision was announced some time ago. I can give the House the absolute assurance that I was not responsible.
	I have also had to deal with pressure from Members who are affected by these decisions to meet them to notify them in advance of my statement to the House. I dealt with that by not meeting them, as I have to inform the House first.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said that he was asleep at 6 o'clock this morning. The Opposition should never sleep, but having been in this place for some time I am aware that they have been asleep for the past eight and a half years. Perhaps they are now waking up to certain realities.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the crucial issue of the two bases. I said that that is the preferred option, but we are some considerable time away from choosing an alternative second base. We are delaying not because of numbers but because the decision on any future basing is better taken at the time on the basis of the configuration of bases that are available. I indicated that Cottesmore and Marham had come out on top in that calculation. Nothing is written out, but nothing is written in as a certainty.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about the wider estate rationalisation. We have to take into account a range of issues, not least of which are the risk factors associated with concentrating assets on individual bases. We do not believe that we face the threat that the hon. Gentleman describes. I do not think—I know that he is sensitive to this as well—that we should explore the nature of possible terrorist attacks. It would take an attack of a catastrophic nature to completely disable a facility. That could apply equally to single buildings where many administrative activities are undertaken. We are aware of how to deal with those issues.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned St. Mawgan in relation to the movement of the ISTAR activity. As far as I am aware—I have not seen the press release—the announcement is welcomed by people in the area, because they are seeking to build on the commercial aspect of the Newquay Cornwall airport. It is likely that that could have not easily coexisted with a military base. The announcement has been welcomed, by and large, by the local community—I appreciate that it is not unanimous—because it is better for the growth of the local economy.
	A number of work streams are in place that could have a beneficial outcome for Leeming, but it is not yet at quite a mature enough level. We shall have to wait and see how that plays out. The same applies to Lyneham. Although we have decided to move the aircraft that were at Lyneham to Brize Norton, we have always said that Lyneham could have alternative defence uses. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who represents the area, is very active in pursuing this. I pay him that compliment although he was pretty condemnatory of me in business questions. Lyneham need not be a solely RAF solution—there could be an Army interest in the site. The same could apply to Leeming. As we rationalise the estate, we do not dispose of it willy-nilly if it may have another defence use. It would be wrong to walk away from valuable real estate in important parts of the country. There has been considerable investment in all that infrastructure, some of which needs significant upgrading none the less. We do not need as many as 50 airfields in terms of what we now seek to do.
	The hon. Member for New Forest, East mentioned the possibility of an external threat from a hostile enemy. I shall deal with that in the debate later, but we do not envisage it as part of the immediate threat. We can debate that at another time. All the factors are being considered, but they do not weigh as heavily with the Ministry of Defence as with the hon. Gentleman.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend's last point, which was about certainty, is valid. I came to the House to make the statement because I recognise the importance of JCA basing. When we undertook the study, we understood that we needed to be clear about what we were doing because it was proving difficult for the commercial interests on the airfield to envisage the future and, therefore, growth in the tourist trade, business and so on. I am working closely with the Department for Transport on that. Indeed, I spoke to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), yesterday about this matter. Several issues must be tackled, but we shall deal with them sympathetically and constructively.
	I stress that the Ministry of Defence cannot bear the cost of matters for which we have no responsibility. They must be met from other sources. We are on the case, we understand its importance and we want Newquay Cornwall airport to grow successfully. We shall do all that we can to facilitate that.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister confirm that the decision that Nimrod MRA4 should remain at RAF Kinloss will not prejudice the existing deployment of aircraft or personnel at RAF Waddington, which is in my constituency, or in any way diminish the operations from that base?

Adam Ingram: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have heard me say that Waddington remains the hub for ISTAR. The preferred option was to co-locate all the aircraft on one airfield. However, the cost implications were so great that it was simply not advisable. Had I done that, at a considerable cost to defence, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would criticise me for mis-spending money that could be better spent elsewhere.
	I have no information that people will be moved away from Waddington because of the replacement of MR2 with MRA4. There will be fewer MRA4s in the fleet. As the JCAs come to Lossiemouth, the GR4s will move to Kinloss to take up the free space. I do not anticipate—there has been no indication of it whatever—that Waddington will be adversely affected.

Adam Ingram: And hairdressers. I should have thought about that one.
	It is a complex picture. I pay tribute to the staff dealing with this—the RAF and civilians—who must work their way through all this. We are trying to do what is right in terms of future basing, to make sure that we can have a long-term future and give that commitment to our personnel, both civilian and RAF, in relation to their location choice, where they buy their house and where they grow their families.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister's announcement in relation to concentrating certain operations on certain airfields applies to my constituents, because the decision on RAF Lyneham, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has referred, will mean concentration of flying at RAF Brize Norton and consequent knock-on effects at RAF Fairford. All the other announcements today have the same effect in terms of aircraft noise, however. Will the Minister consider two things? First, wherever possible, ought not the maximum amount of training to be done on simulators to reduce aircraft noise? Secondly, with all the changes, will he undertake to do the maximum amount of liaison with local democratically elected bodies—district councils, borough councils and parish councils?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman will be only too well aware that a lot of simulation takes place, and as the technology for that advances, the capacity and quality of output also increases. People cannot be trained to fly on simulators alone, however, especially if they are training to fly fast jets. I am not an expert, but I know that the people who need to get those planes into the sky need to be familiar with all their characteristics and to put the physical machine under test as well as themselves as flyers. We try to marry all that up.
	On local interests in relation to environmental issues such as noise pollution, we deal with that. We have a very good relationship with the communities around our airfields. If such a community suddenly became very negative about an airfield, however, and no one wanted it, that would also have to be taken into account. Those who make the comments have to be clear about what they want, rather than just nipping away on the sidelines about it. Do they want an airfield there; are they going to be good neighbours? They have been and I pay tribute to them for all the support that they have given us in the past.
	As to the JCA, it is a noisy aircraft and will not be without impact on RAF Lossiemouth and the community. A number of houses and farms will have to be moved if the footprint is as we anticipate. There will be some adverse impact that will have to be attended to, but the community of Moray is very keen to get the aircraft and I am grateful that they are.

Adam Ingram: I apologise for the mix-up about this morning's meeting. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, in any case, I could not have spoken to him about the detail of what was happening in his area in advance of the statement that I made today. It was truly a mix-up for which I apologise, particularly to those who travelled, but it was for good and sensible reasons. If the hon. Gentleman had risen in his place to say that he had had a meeting with me this morning, I can only imagine what would have happened.
	I am too well aware of the impact of the closure. That is why I announced that changes would be likely up to 2010 in respect of the other two lodger units there. It is a significant development for St. Mawgan airfield and the wider area. I give the hon. Gentleman my absolute assurance that, within the limits of what we can do, we will work with all agencies. I hope that he will not ask in future for the MOD to spend money when it is not for defence purposes. We cannot do that. If developments have to take place elsewhere, other Government agencies, local authority interests and perhaps commercial interests will be involved.
	As to the disposal of the airfield, I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands—I would have told him this morning—that we have to look at alternative defence uses. That is our first priority. That is what we have done at RAF Lyneham, RAF Leeming and elsewhere. The indications are that such use is unlikely, but we still have to go through the process. Defence Estates will get ownership and then offer it round to see whether others are interested. It will have to take a quick decision; disposal through the appropriate mechanisms will then have to take place. That is where we will work sensitively with local interests to ensure that it is best handled. We can then make a transition to a commercial airfield, if that is what is to happen, and help the local economy in that part of the country.

Adam Ingram: We have discussions in the corridors about a whole range of important issues. I am not aware of the actual costing threshold, but if the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should charge commercial interests less, whereby the defence resource goes down, I would not be up for that.

Brian Jenkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but what is coming across—he must now admit it—is a degree of confusion. People find that these decisions take them by surprise. Would it not be better if he and his Department took a more personal interest in the guidelines within which they operate? What is a good business case and what weight is given to the community? Then, hon. Members would better know the requirements for those based in our areas. We would not then be taken by surprise when the announcements are made.

Mark Pritchard: May I thank the Minister for his good grace in apologising to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Rogerson) for cancelling his appointment with the hon. Gentleman? What reassurance can he give my constituents that he will not cancel his appointment with me at 5.15 pm on 28 November to discuss the job cuts at the Army Base Repair Organisation? While some elements of the defence review are welcome, is this not another case of the MOD's leading on estates and economics, rather than national security and defence?

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last night, the House very sensibly decided to move the business originally scheduled for Friday 24 February to Friday 3 March, because we have decided to have our recess during the week in which the 24th falls. You will be aware that these are days for private Members' Bills, in which some of us take a very great interest. You will therefore imagine my astonishment when I opened today's Order Paper and discovered on page 1278 that the business is still there for 24 February, and that there is nothing for 3 March. I hope that this confusion can be cleared up quickly. Those of us who want to plan ahead and draft our contributions in seeking to catch your eye on that day are indeed somewhat confused, so I hope that you can put this matter to rest and make sure that the Order Paper properly reflects the decision of the House.

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had notice from Transport Ministers of their intention to make a statement in the House on the London-wide transport implications of the axing of the popular, fuel-efficient and iconic routemaster bus, and its being replaced by the gas-guzzling, ugly and unpopular bendy bus?

Adam Ingram: I have been intervened on Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not know whether you are going to allow me to continue this debate. There is a simple way of proceeding. I do not want to raise the temperature, but we are talking about our armed forces and how we best serve them. The hon. Gentleman could simply say that he was sorry that he made those intemperate remarks, which were inappropriate and a terrible slur on one of the finest soldiers of his generation. The hon. Gentleman may well look forward to the meeting but, if I know General Sir Mike Jackson, he should do so with some trepidation. He can be very robust when it comes to saying what he thinks, but an apology in a public forum such as this would not go amiss. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to apologise now. The hon. Gentleman remains in his seat, so it is clear that he does not want to apologise. His remarks therefore remain on the record. I look forward to seeing the minutes of his meeting with the general, if I am able to do so.
	The role of defence in the UK is to ensure that the armed forces are structured, trained and equipped to meet the challenges that they face today and will face tomorrow. We need to ensure that every penny that we spend is spent wisely, in support of the front line. At the same time, we must provide support to our personnel and their families to enable them to focus on the job at hand.That is no small task. Our annual budget is about £28 billion and we employ more than 270,000 people. Indirectly, we support a further 400,000 jobs in the defence industry. Against that background, I want to take the opportunity provided by today's debate to describe the progress we are making in delivering on our commitment to the armed forces. I also want to talk about the role that the armed forces play within the UK.
	The pace of change across the globe is remorseless, and with change comes new challenges for our armed forces. We must ensure that they are properly structured to meet those challenges, and that is precisely what we are doing—no more so than in respect of the Army.In December last year, the then Secretary of State announced that we would rebalance the Army to develop a more deployable, agile and flexible force—a force better able to meet the challenges and threats of the 21st century. This is known as the future army structure. We are now moving ahead to implement those changes, which will make the Army a more balanced, robust and resilient force.
	On 1 August, we announced the start of full security normalisation in Northern Ireland. That will allow the reinvestment of posts back into the Army, to make it better suited to meet the enduring expeditionary operations that have characterised our deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years. As a result of the progress in Northern Ireland, the Army can reinvest more than 2,500 posts into specialist capabilities, including communications, engineering, logistics and intelligence, while making the infantry more robust. Continued progress in Northern Ireland, coupled with the end of the infantry arms plot—the process by which infantry battalions used to completely re-role, retrain and relocate every few years—is allowing the Army to reduce the number of infantry battalions by four. Under the existing system, up to 20 per cent. of the Army is unavailable for deployment. With the end of the arms plot, we will have more battalions available at any one time.

Adam Ingram: The reason for the proportion of non-British citizens is probably a mixture of those alternatives. A conscious decision was taken to encourage what are known as Foreign and Commonwealth personnel into the armed forces, and the proportion that the hon. Gentleman quotes is about right. All of the people to whom he refers serve with distinction, and I draw his attention to the bravery of Fusilier Beharry from Grenada, who won a VC. Others among that element in the armed forces have served with considerable distinction as well, and they bring much strength and support. Another example might be the Gurkhas, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that their presence in our armed forces is undesirable. I am also sure that he is not suggesting that we should not encourage South Africans, New Zealanders, Australians and others into the British armed forces. However, we are always aware that a balance needs to be struck in these matters. We must maintain the pressure on recruitment, and I shall say more about that later.

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, and he is right. Change is always difficult, but there is an appreciation among our armed forces that what we propose will be for the greater good of the British Army in the longer term. I am always struck that sergeant-majors—and, sometimes, the regimental sergeant-majors—are the most forceful when it comes to putting that view across. One talks to such people with some trepidation, as in one sense they speak on behalf of everyone. I have never met one who has said that what we are doing is wrong. They understand the difficulties that we face. Although they say that they wish that no reform was necessary, they are keen to move forward rather than move backward or stand still. They know that we need to change.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raises the whole question of accoutrements and the golden thread. I must explain that that really is not a matter for Ministers. It is a minefield into which we tread very warily. The Army must decide what is acceptable and deliverable in that regard. The executive committee of the Army Board is looking at these questions and announcements will be made in due course. It is possible that decisions have been made that have not been passed on to Ministers but, once the information is available, the House will be notified in the appropriate manner. It is right that we notify those who serve about such matters first. We are conscious of the golden thread and the whole question of accoutrements. Difficult decisions will have to be taken, but I take note of my hon. Friend's point.
	I was talking about the end of the arms plot and the fact that 20 per cent. of the Army is unavailable for deployment under the existing system. As we move forward with the restructure, there will be fewer battalions—36 instead of 40—but we will have greater usability. Capability will no longer be lost due to the need for battalions to move location or re-role. That will also mean that the infantry will be able to offer much greater stability for soldiers and their families, so they will be able to plan their lives and careers with confidence. That is what our soldiers want. Given the benefits to families, that should help with the retention of our highly trained people.
	When making changes to modernise the infantry, it has been important not to throw away their history and heritage. I have explained the background to why we are determined to maintain the golden thread. As well as considering history and heritage as part of our approach on recruitment and retention, we must keep it in mind that in the 21st century our armed forces must be truly representative of the society that they serve. We must review barriers to equality of opportunity whenever that can be done without compromising operational effectiveness. Let me cite several examples of the way in which we are addressing the matter. We are considering what flexibility might be possible to help those serving in the armed forces with child care and other family responsibilities. We carry out a wide range of outreach and recruitment activities that are specifically designed to build links with ethnic minority, gay and lesbian communities. We have recently recruited our first Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh chaplains, and we are continuing to work in partnership with the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality.

Lembit �pik: The Minister has been generous and I thank him for giving way.
	I and others welcome many of the changes in the training regime with which the Minister has been involved. Does he agree that some of those changes were caused by the ongoing investigations into the deaths at Deepcut barracks? Although I commend his proactive role with the parents, they have still not seen the Deepcut report on the inquiry commissioned by Surrey police and conducted by Devon and Cornwall police. Does he accept that that raises suspicion and upset in the mind of the parents and is there anything he can do to encourage Surrey police to publish that report, which would be in the public interest?

Lembit �pik: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my first question. Does he accept that the reason why I am concerned to see the report published is that I genuinely believe that it is in the public interest for that to happen? It would also be in the Army's interests, because we have already learned lots of lessons. My frustration relates to the fact that, at every stage, Surrey police and, to an extent, the Army have been secretive and unwilling to share the information. I thank the Minister for his response and hope that he will be constructive in helping us to get the information into the public domain.

Adam Ingram: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not over-interpret what I am saying. There are good reasons why the information has not been disclosed. I cannot give him the explanation. He should pursue the issue with the responsible Minister and the responsible Department. I do not answer for the civilian police, but I understand why he asks those questions, as well as the hurt about the issues.
	With a slip of the tongue, I inadvertently called Private Beharry, VC, Fusilier Beharry. He is, of course, a private, and I just want to get the record straight.
	Battle-winning troops need battle-winning equipment. Even the longest period of sustained real growth in planned defence spending for more than 20 years does not make equipment provision an easy task. Our aspirations will always outstrip our resources. With shipbuilding alone, we are embarked on a programme that is likely to be worth 14 billion over the next 10 to 15 yearsthe largest programme of work for decades. The ships and submarines that will be built are much more than steel hulls. They will be complex weapons systems full of cutting-edge technology. Some of our ships may be in service for a very long time and will need to be adapted and upgraded over their lives. The future carriers, for example, will deliver expeditionary offensive air power over a projected life of more than 50 years.
	All that requires a change in the nature of our relationship with industry. We need to work more closely with those in the defence industry to ensure that they understand our needs and can tailor their expectations accordingly. That is why my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Drayson, who has responsibility for defence procurement, is developing a defence industrial strategy, which will provide industry with a better understanding of what our future equipment requirements are likely to be. It will set out the key capabilities that must be fostered and sustained in the UK to meet our future requirements. If there are industrial capabilities and technologies that we need to retain in the UK but that are at risk, we must act now to preserve them. However, we cannot sustain all the defence capabilities that currently exist within UK industry.
	By adopting a buy-British policy where an equivalent, cheaper alternative product is available abroad, or a better one for the same price, our armed forces could either get less, or worse, equipment than they deserve. Of course, equipment does not stay on the parade ground being polished. It is used in action. It must be fit for purpose. Our people expect that and they should get nothing less.

Michael Ancram: I rise to speak today with somewhat mixed feelings. On 6 December, at my own request, I shall return to the Back Benches, and this, therefore, is my last speech from the Dispatch Box, and my last speech as shadow Secretary of State for Defence.
	I was grateful to the Secretary of State for the remarks that he made on Monday, and I reciprocate them. I regard him as a man who has a real affection for our armed forces, and who, so far as he is allowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has their interests at heart. I have always found him an honourable Minister to deal with, in his many roles, and an agreeable companion beyond the boundaries of party politics. We have occasionally sung in harmony togetherand I mean that genuinely, both of us being folk singers from our misspent youth.
	Having thus destroyed any lingering leadership ambitions that the Secretary of State may secretly have nurtured, I turn next to the Minister of State. Never a man to duck a fight, as we have seen again today, honed as I was in the heat of pre-devolution Scottish politics and on the fires of conflict in Northern Ireland, he is an opponent for whom I have always had the utmost respect.
	I welcome this debate on defence in the United Kingdom. Since the end of the cold war, the concept of defence of the realm has changed. From being reactive, in the light of evolving threats it has now had to become proactive. Alongside deterrence, there is now an increased need for pre-emption, or what the United Nations Commission called prevention. That is why, for instance, military action in Afghanistan in 2001 was prosecuted under the self-defence article, article 51, of the United Nations charter. We can no longer regard defence in Britain as being solely restricted within the boundaries of Britain.
	I join the Minister of State in the praise that he has just given to the emergency services and the way that they operated after the terrorist outrages of 7 July. But those terrorist outrages and their connection to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism underlined the way in which homeland security and events overseas are now inextricably linked. The balance, therefore, between the maintenance of defence resources within the United Kingdom and their deployment outside the United Kingdom is a crucial and difficult one to strike. The common denominator between them is the need for sufficient manpower and adequate equipment, and that should be a crucial element of today's debate.
	We start the debate with a degree of harmony. We both pay tribute to our armed forces; we both acknowledge our debt to them for the dedicated courage with which they carry out their duties. I am unashamedly proud of our armed forces, whose commitment and professionalism are second to none. But we owe them more than just our words of thanks and praise. We owe them effective support, and I should have thought that that was common between us. Sadly, I cannot think that it is.
	In my last Front-Bench defence speech I intend to be frank. I simply did not recognise our armed forces from the description given today by the right hon. Gentleman. I have never in over 30 years in politics known our armed forces to be under such pressure, to be so unsighted as to the Government's purpose and direction, to feel so unappreciated and devalued, and to be under such constant threat of cuts.
	Since 1997, the armed forces have seen the level of their commitments rise, but not their resources. In simple terms, since 1997 they have been asked by the Government to do more and more with less and less. There have been five major operations in eight yearsBosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraqall prosecuted brilliantly by our forces, but the resources available to those forces have been diminishing.

Michael Ancram: Since I took on this role for the Opposition, I have made it clear that I believe that it is essential to match commitments to resources and resources to commitments. The complaint that I make now, and the reason why the armed forces are under such pressure, is that those resources and commitments are out of kilter. That is why some of the matters that I shall now outline are in fact the case.
	Out of the armed forces helicopter fleet, 25 per cent. is grounded, with many needing lengthy overhauls, largely due to flying in Iraq. Out of the fleet of 569 helicopters, 121 are in repair and 79 have been classified as beyond repair. All of the RAF specialised aircraft in Iraq are grounded due to mechanical faults, more than 50 per cent. of the UK's armoured vehicle fleet is not fit for use, and only 1,483 of the Army's 3,340 combat reconnaissance class vehicles are in working order. The armed forces are now under intolerable pressure.
	We have seen the reality of activity far outstripping the levels predicted in the review on which resources were supposedly based. But we have not seen any matching rise in defence spending . . . as a percentage of GDP, defence spending has fallen away.[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. 48485.]
	Those are not my words, but those of our most recently retired Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce.
	It seems extraordinary . . . at a time . . . when Iraq needs reinforcing; when Afghanistan needs additional troops . . . that we are actually reducing the size of the Army and in particular the number of infantrymen, who are the very people we need on current and future operations. [Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. 564.]
	Again, those are not my words, but this time those of the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie.

John Reid: I have no intention of trying to cover all the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises, only one. While I was with the Army in the field on exercise yesterday, I understand that an allegation was made that reinforcements had been requested for Iraq and refused. That is a wrong and misleading accusation, and inadvertently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred today to the need for reinforcements, presumably based on that factually incorrect assertion made from his own Benches yesterday. I want to give an assurance that we have not been asked for the reinforcements, as was alleged yesterday, nor have I refused them.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that Ministers heard his remarks. I hope that they will in due course make such a statement. I, too, have read reports of the haemorrhaging that he describes.
	At the same time, we are witnessing a dangerous fall-off in training, yet training is at the heart of the maintenance of effective armed forces. Reductions in training have a progressively damaging effect on fighting power and ethos. At the highest level it may take years to recover standards that have been lost. One cannot buy in experience. Being heavily committed to operations can off-set some of those disadvantages, particularly in respect of command training, but reducing activity levels for field force units that are not committed to operations is a self-inflicted wound.
	In the words of Lord Guthrie, another former Chief of the Defence Staff:
	It should be of great concern that soldiers are now being deployed less well trained than they should be and less well trained than they have been in the past . . . Individual soldiers are less skilled than they were; training standards are too low; gunnery and field firing camps are cancelled; training between infantry, tanks, engineers and those parts of the Army that may have to co-operate and fight together rarely takes place.[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2005; Vol. 668, c. 564.]
	That is not an Opposition spokesman making an accusation across the Dispatch Box; it is a former Chief of the Defence Staff who knows what he is talking about. The Government should have the courage to listen to what they are being told by such men. What action are the Government taking to deal with recruitment, retention and training?

Michael Ancram: I have known General Mike Jackson for a long time. He and I have had our disagreements, as the House knows, about the disbandment of regiments this time last year, when the announcement was made in the House and I responded to it. But he is a man for whom I have the utmost respect, and I am sure that after he has retired we will be seeing even more of each other.
	What action, I asked, are the Government taking to address the issues of recruitment, retention and training? None. This in the end is all about cuts. All this talk of making savings comes oddly from a Government who have wasted so much on a mismanaged procurement programme. Despite the launch of the smart procurement initiative in July 1998six and a half years agounder the mantra, faster, cheaper, better, there has been little evidence of success. The National Audit Office major project report of 2004 showed little evidence of project performance improving, finding that the MOD's 20 largest projects were 144 months behind schedule and more than 6 per cent. over budget. That is hardly faster, cheaper and better. I fear that the soon-to-be-published major project report for 2005 will make equally disappointing reading.
	Defence procurement policy remains in a chaotic state, with most of the vital new programmes still awaiting production contract signature. The aircraft carrier project, which we talked about on Monday, is a good example of this Government's incompetence. The Minister of State accused me on Monday of having attacked MOD officials because of the chaos in the programme. I did not; I talked about ministerial incompetence. Procurement decisions are taken by Ministers and they have to accept responsibility. In that project there is still total uncertainty as to when the carriers will enter service, whether they can be provided within budget and what involvement the French might have in the project. This is a shameful reflection of the mess into which the Government have got themselves on defence expenditure.
	The greatest threat to our armed forces posed by this Government is what they are allowing to happen, or in some cases are actually doing, to morale. We all understand that morale is crucial to the health of our armed forces. Of course, Ministers and generals claim that morale is highthey always have and they always will. But that is not what I am hearing on the ground. The effects of overstretch and the equipment shortfall are part of the problem, but there is something more insidious, and I make no excuse for returning to the matter.
	There is considerable disquiet among some members of the forces and concern that, even when doing their perceived duty in an operational situation, they may become vulnerable to prosecution and will not always be backed up higher up the chain of command, where it may be claimed that the matter has been taken out of their hands.
	Those are not my words but those of Field Marshall Lord Bramall in the House of Lords on 14 July.
	The Armed Forces are under legal siege and are being pushed in a direction that will see such an order being deemed as improper or legally unsound. They are being pushed by people schooled not in operations but only in political correctness. They are being pushed to a time when they will fail in an operation because the commanding officer's authority and his command chain has been compromised with tortuous rules not relevant to fighting and where his instinct to be daring and innovative is being buried under the threat of liabilities and hounded out by those who have no concept of what is required to fight and win.[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2005; Vol. 673, c. 122636.]
	Again, those are not my words but those of Lord Boyce, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, in the debate in the House of Lords on 14 July. The Government cannot pretend that those views do not matter. There is a consistency in the views of former Chiefs of the Defence Staff to which the Government must pay attention.
	I am not suggesting that criminal misdemeanours should not be prosecutedof course, they should. However, if we send troops to fight on our behalf they must know that we recognise that a battlefield is not a court of law and that their ability to fight and winand, indeed, in some cases to survivemust not be compromised. Today more than ever they need that support from us.

Michael Ancram: I do not think that in anything I have saidor, indeed, in what was said by the former Chiefs of the Defence StaffI have attacked any serving soldier. What I am saying to the Secretary of State is that there is a genuine problem on the ground. I am glad that he acknowledges that. For the well-being of our troops, particularly those who are engaged in dangerous missions overseas on our behalf, that cannot be allowed to continue. Far from the buoyant Army that was described by the Minister of State, the armed forces have problems. Having said that I know the Secretary of State has their interests at heart, I hope that he will address the problems not just with rhetoric, but by finding a way to give the armed forces the moral support that they deserve.
	I turn to some of the tasks undertaken by our armed forces. Those tasks may be overseas, but they are undertaken because they are part of the way that we defend ourselves. I said earlier that our involvement in Afghanistan was based on article 51, which is about self-defence. I would argue that even in Iraq, given the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, what we are doing relates not only to that country but to our security in the United Kingdom.
	The issues arising in these areas are complex. In Afghanistan, the broadening of ISAF control over the areas where new provincial reconstruction teams are deployed may lead to merging the command structures of Operation Enduring Freedom and the NATO/ISAF operation. We are led to believethe Secretary of State may know more about this than I, but I saw a report this morningthat not only France but now Belgium could yet veto any integration of US-led forces and NATO-led forces under one command. What is the Government's position on this?
	What role will UK forces playpeacekeeping, counter-insurgency, counter-narcotics, or a combination of them all? If it is a combination, is it seriously suggested that the British contingent could operate under a number of different commands? How will that affect the rules of engagement? The idea that UK forces could be asked to operate under two rules of engagement, with the sort of confusion that arose in Kosovo, is unthinkable. Harmonisation of the rules of engagement of each of the participating countries is essential.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that incipient deployments of additional troops to Afghanistan, if and when the decision is made, will not be at the expense of our commitment in Iraq? I may have been wrong in suggesting that requests for further troops in Iraq have been made. It would be extremely damaging and dangerous at this moment if our troops in southern Iraq were moved over to Afghanistan, leaving a vacuum there.

Peter Kilfoyle: I am sorry that the Secretary of State is about to leaveah, he has decided to return. It is not for me to give a man of his calibre advice, but having heard the shadow spokesman's comments, I remind the Secretary of State to beware Greeks and Tories bearing gifts, even if they are only encomiums of praise. I do not know what it does for my right hon. Friend, but it makes me very uneasy when there is such a closeness between the Secretary of State and the other side.
	I had the pleasure of watching a drama on television last night about Siegfried Sassoon, who was a great poet. The drama was about his treatment in a hospital in Scotland, where one of his co-rehabilitees was another great war poet, Wilfred Owen. The immortal lines of Wilfred Owen's greatest poem come to mind:
	dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
	No one wants to see the modern soldier reduced to the condition of soldiers in the first world war.
	It was interesting to hear Sir Ian Blair deliver the Dimbleby lecture and discuss the need for a great and open debate on policing in this country. His speech reminded me that the Secretary of State for Defence recently said that there should be a national debate about what replaces Trident, and I want to discuss the changed circumstances and whether we need to replace Trident.
	The strategic defence review reported in 1998. The House of Commons Library note on the review makes the valid remark that the SDR then was evolutionary rather than revolutionary. However, it did not face up in a radical way to many of the circumstances that it should have done, but continued the pre-existing policy.
	The one thing on which I will agree with the Government is that circumstances have changed dramatically since 9/11. We are told that it was year zero and that all the rules of the game have changed. If so, we need a proper review of our overall defensive strategy.
	Before the debate, I jotted down some of the things that have happened since 9/11 to change dramatically our stance, or implied stance, given our close relationship with the United States on a bilateral basis and through NATO. Our close allies, to whom, we are told, we are inextricably linked, are considering the weaponisation of space. Members on both sides of the House recently went to a briefing with the Washington-based Centre for Defence Studies on exactly how the air force is developing plans for that. The Americans have adopted the notion of full spectrum dominance, with the aspiration of dominating land, sea, air, space and cyberspace. They have taken up the notion of pre-emptive war, which we thought was unacceptable for the west. They have even started to moot, with some support from the previous Secretary of State for Defence, the idea that nuclear strikes on non-nuclear countries, even in a pre-emptive mode, would be feasible. There have been various withdrawals from treaties to which we all subscribed, and a failure to implement others, including those that have a direct impact on whether Trident is replaced.
	We are entering a time frame in which we are considering earmarking expenditure for Trident's successor. There is ample evidence that a lot of money has been allocated in preparation for the new generation of warheads for it. Refitting has already taken place at Aldermaston.
	We are in a different world and about to embark on a new course. There is no more suitable time for a complete review of what our defence objectives, strategy and priorities should be.

Julian Lewis: In support of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Trident, although from the opposite side of the argument, I remind him that in the 1980s, in the run-up to Trident, the then Conservative Government published a series of open government defence documents that aired the arguments about the decision to replace Polaris with Trident. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government are serious about starting the debate, they should begin by publishing a similar rationale, so that the public debate can get under way as to why we need a successor or, indeed, why we do not?

Michael Moore: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) made some important points, to which I hope to return. I join in the earlier tributes to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). In the past three or four years, I have sat through many foreign affairs and defence debates in which he has participated. I have listened to many of his speeches. We have not always agreedwe may not do so on certain matters this afternoonbut I have never doubted his commitment and knowledge. I am sure that he will continue to contribute to our debates on those matters in future.Tributes were quite properly paid earlier to the bravery, dedication and professionalism of the armed forces in this country in all their different roles, on operations abroad or in the United Kingdom. There were also tributes to the emergency services and the way in which they work with the armed forces in carrying out their terrible duties on days such as 7 July this year. I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with those comments.
	On Remembrance Sunday last weekend, we all in our different ways, at constituency events or elsewhere, paid tribute to veterans and to those who gave their lives in the service of this country. A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to visit the Earl Haig poppy factory in Edinburgh. I was shown around and saw not just the great work in the factory, which produces millions of poppies every year, but the work undertaken with the money raised. In Scotland, something in the order of 1.4 million was raised last year. In the rest of the UK, I understand that the British Legion raises something like 23 million through its appeal. That is both a staggering achievement and a sign of just how important it is that we continue to work on behalf of those living in our communities who have served this country. It is right that we should continue to remember those who gave their lives in world wars, and all others who have done so in the service of their country.
	The debate is fairly broadly defined, which the contributions so far have demonstrated comprehensively. I want to focus on a few key areas. In the past, Select Committee reports have sometimes been the focus of these debates. There have been none as yet in this Parliament, but I know that the Defence Committee has been working extremely hard and has had some interesting evidence sessions, which I hope will lead to reports in due course.
	I commend the Ministry of Defence on its annual reporta comprehensive document that provides a useful focus on the MOD's thinking and its activities throughout the year. I will try to follow loosely the structure of that report in picking out subjects for discussion.
	It is fair to say that defence in the United Kingdom is based on a strategy for which there is a large degree of consensus in the country. That is not to ignore substantial differences over specific issues such as Iraq, nor to suggest that there is not plenty of scope for major disagreements over many areas of implementation and detail. One of the most significant strategic issues, however, which has the potential to unpick that consensus, is the future of nuclear policy, to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton referred.
	The defence White Paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World, published in December 2003, first raised the issue of the replacement of Trident when it indicated that a decision was likely to be required in this Parliament. At the time, the quote might have looked as though it was tucked away in relative obscurity at the bottom of page 10, but since the election it has attracted a great deal of attention in this House and elsewhere. That is entirely understandable, as this is one of the most important debates that the country will have.
	Our election manifesto committed us to work first and foremost for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis while retaining the United Kingdom's current minimum nuclear deterrent. We retain that position. If we are to be able to make a decision on the replacement of Trident, however, a properly informed debate is needed beforehand. There are significant questions about the timingwhy now? We need information about the options being considered and the costs that go with them, assessing not only whether it is a cost that the country can afford, but the opportunity costs in the sense of what will be lost if we divert resources to that particular investment. We also need a full and frank debate about the strategic context, not just about the nature of the threatwe need to bear in mind that we are trying to predict 20 or 30 years onas we also need to take account of the projected alliances of which we are members.
	There are, of course, philosophical, moral and many otherincluding even instinctivereasons that will be brought into the debate. We must have that debate, and to inform it I would endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) about the need for a consultation paper. In response to a question put by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on Monday, the Secretary of State indicated that he might come forward with a Green Paper on the matter, and we believe that he should. I hope that in replying to this afternoon's debate, the Under-Secretary will be able to give us a firmer commitment on that, and preferably a timetable.
	One of the key areas of policy that will be before us before long is the proposed armed forces Bill. It has already been subject to some pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill is important as a quinquennial review of service discipline, but this time we know that it will be more than a tidy-up. It will deal with streamlining the different systems in the three services into one, while seeking to harmonise military law more closely with civilian law. The core principle of service discipline is that the military is not above the law and must operate within it. The Ministry of Defence mission statement does not talk only about the need to defend the UK and its interests and strengthen international peace and securityit rightly adds that our forces must
	act for a force for good in the world.
	We certainly believe that operating within the law is a prerequisite for that. That is a heavy burden to place on military personnel, who face untold dangers and take daily risks with their own and others' lives. As was observed earlier, they cannot strike or speak out and they have to go where they are sent. We surely owe them a vast duty of care. As a minimum, that requires a clear set of rules and clear law that take account of the extraordinary things that we expect of them.
	Recent case law, with Trooper Williams and the collapse of the 3 Paras trial a couple of weeks ago, has put those issues under a sharp spotlight. We must carefully learn the lessons from those cases. The Minister has said that a comprehensive review of those cases is now under way. Indeed, he rebuked some of us last week, during the debate on the urgent question of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes, for apparently rushing to conclusions. It is always a delicate balancing actwe are not allowed hindsight, but we must not pre-judge either. Fine, but we need assurances that some of the issues highlighted by people involved in those cases are seriously examined. We need prompt and timely investigationswithout any massive gaps between the alleged incidents and the investigationand adequate resources must be made available for them. There should also be proper legal expertise among not only those pursuing the case, but those actually doing the investigation.
	In bringing forward the new Bill, we need a commitment that we will see not only the law being reformed, but the resources necessary to ensure an effective and just system of military law. It would certainly help the House if, in replying to the debate, the Under-Secretary could clarify when he anticipates the publication of the Bill and its proceedings through Parliament. Will he also make it clear whether there is any intention to use the quasi-Select Committee approach to the Bill's consideration, as used in the past?
	Military law underpins the services and is vital to our credibility in the wider world, but it also matters to people here in Britain, not least to the parents of young servicemen and womenthe gatekeepers, as the Secretary of State put it in the House a few weeks ago. Confidence in the disciplinary system is absolutely necessary, not least to root out the bullying that breaks out from time to time, and which is a scar on our armed forces' reputation. The latest available Army version of the armed forces continuous attitude survey to April of this year makes for grim reading in that respect. One key set of findings highlights the fact that 25 per cent. of soldiers had cause to complain about unfair treatment, discrimination, harassment and/or bullying. More than half were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the objectivity and fairness with which their complaint was handled. I accept that that is a snapshot, but it is a worrying signal at a time when the tragic events at Deepcut remain firmly in the public eye. Ministers are well aware of the dissatisfaction of parents and families with the investigation so far and their anger at the limited publication of the Devon and Cornwall police report. Many also have long-standing fears about restrictions to the scope of the Blake review.
	Ministers know better than any of us the damage that such things can do to recruitment, and will want to limit it. I understand that we can expect no commitments from Ministers at least until the Blake review has been completed. However, I hope that they will recognise parents' fears that this review will not necessarily succeed in answering their questions, and that they will be ready to push such issues further if the outcome is unsatisfactory to them. In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) raised concerns about publication of the full report of the Devon and Cornwall police review of the Surrey police investigation. We welcome the Minister's sensitive comments and hope that that will lead to some progress.
	If I may, I want to change the focus and turn to what is potentially one of the MOD's great success stories: Qinetiq, which, according to its own blurb:
	is one of the world's leading defence technology and security companies.
	It does indeed have an impressive track record that stretches back to its original MOD days. It was involved in the development of liquid crystal displays, carbon fibre, microwave radar and much else besides. Today, it is at the forefront in many fields, including defence interests such as unmanned aerial vehicles and robotic bomb disposal, and other developments such as runway radar, which is used to identify dangerous debris. It has a breathtaking range of capabilities, fantastic employees, great management and wonderful potential.
	As guardian of our national security, and as a shareholder and customer, the MOD clearly has a significant interest in the future of Qinetiq. This is surely an issue for Parliament, given the intention to proceed to flotation. All the signs for a flotation are there. Last year's readiness study by Morgan Stanley apparently concluded that flotation was appropriate. This year, Credit Suisse First Boston, JP Morgan and Merrill Lynch were appointed as financial advisers, with the ubiquitous Rothschild as consultants. Acquisitions continue apace, particularly in the important United States market, but also in Belgium with the acquisition of a satellite maker. At the very least, that will challenge a few long-held stereotypes about Belgium.
	Press reports over the summer indicated that we are heading toward a 1 billion flotation by the end of the year. However, according to recent reports such as that in The Daily Telegraph,
	it is understood to be gearing up for a . . . flotation in the first half of next year.
	It is hard to find any clues from official sources so far. The MOD properly refers to the company in its annual reports and financial statements, but there is no mention of the flotation. Qinetiq's own annual reportadmittedly, it is six months oldtalks about it only in principle. In an interesting recent development, the company's website commented on an article that appeared in the Guardian late last summer and spoke about the purported flotation, rather than an actual flotation. There is much coyness about the matter, but quite a lot of information has slipped into the public domain. Perhaps this debate offers a chance for Parliament to begin to share in that information, as there are serious issues to be considered.
	Ministers may say that flotation is a matter for the company, but Qinetiq's executive chairman, Sir John Chisholm, said, when asked after last year's positive readiness review why no flotation was in prospect, that it was
	a matter for the shareholders.
	It is important to remember that after the part-privatisation of a few years ago, the MOD retains a 56 per cent. shareholding. Employees have 13 per cent. and the private Carlyle group has 31 per cent. Therefore, the question of flotation is very much one for the Government and Parliament.
	Important questions need to be addressed. For example, who is driving the demands of the flotation? Clearly, the company's management is incentivised and therefore has an interest in the matter. The Carlyle group has made it clear that it wants an exit from its strategic investment, but is the drive coming from the Treasury, whose instinct is to sell things off and raise money, or is it coming from the Shareholder Executive, which is responsible for the most commercial parts of Government and has some challenging targets to meet?
	It would be helpful if some suggestions in the press could be put to rest. For instance, there has been talk that the financial imperatives of the flotation are leading Qinetiq to bulk up by acquisition and to focus less on pure research. How are we to ensure that the taxpayer will get a fair return? That is important, not least because it appears that the Carlyle group has some very interesting tax shelter arrangements in Guernsey, which most outside observers consider to be highly unusual in this context.
	Will the MOD receive receipts for its already tight budget? So far, the company's profitability has depended on its contracts with the Ministry. Some reports say that Qinetiq will receive 250 million from any flotation and that the rest will go to the Treasury. The veracity of that is hard to assess when we do not have the full picture or know whether the MOD will retain a direct stake in the company.
	There is also a very important national security angle to the matter. As I have mentioned already, Qinetiq is a significant supplier to the MOD, so its ownership will be of crucial national interest. A special share is mooted, and its creation might indicate that the company will not be listed abroad or that it will not move into foreign ownership. Where might Thales or even BAE Systems fit within those requirements? After the flotation, how will potential conflicts be handled and will there be a new basis for Government funding to the company?
	There is no doubt that other issues merit consideration and I have given the House just a sample. My understanding is that the flotation does not require primary legislation, and I should be grateful if the Minister who winds up the debate will confirm that much at least. If no such legislation is needed, how will Parliament be involved in the legitimate scrutiny of what would be a very significant development?
	I emphasise that I believe that Qinetiq is an excellent company and that my party has no objection in principle to its flotation. However, many unanswered questions remain, to which Parliament really should receive an answer before the flotation proceeds much further.
	Qinetiq is a major part of the early development of future capabilities for the military. The MOD properly expends a great deal of effort in that areathe future of provision of equipment to the military has already figured strongly in this debate, as has the related defence-industrial strategy that will underpin it. It is understood that Lord Drayson will make an announcement soon, and I hope that we will then be able to have a serious and informed debate on the matter.
	One final matter in respect of future capabilities has to do with the regiments. This is well-trodden ground: I respect the fact that recent presentations to Members of Parliament have set out what is planned, and that the game will soon be up. However, I hope that Ministers do not lose sight of the fact that there is still a great deal of anger and resentment in communities throughout many parts of the country, not least in my constituency. We will not only lose our local regimentsthe King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scotsbut those regiments will be merged into a single battalion of the new Royal Regiment of Scotland.
	I have never been persuaded that the modernisation, which we support, requires abandoning the historical regiments and all that goes with them. Will the Minister at least give us assurances today about the future of the museums and regimental headquarter offices, which act as a focal point for communities in different parts of the country?

Michael Moore: Indeed. I do not wish to comment, but I am sure that the Minister has heard the hon. Lady's point. Perhaps he will be able to explain the situation to her in due course because I know how important it is.
	My father was a chaplain in the Army for five years, during which time he was attached to the Royal Highland Fusiliers. I visited its museum a few weeks ago, as have Ministers and many other hon. Members. The traditions and legacies are important, so many people are distressed that they will be lost. There is still one major effort going on outside Parliament to illustrate the folly of what is being done and the strength of feeling among the public. When the national petitions are brought to Parliament, I hope that Ministers will take careful account of them.
	I am sure that this will continue to be a wide-ranging debate because there are many contributions still to come. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity to deal with the huge range of issues raised, whether that is in his winding-up speech or by correspondence in due course. We devote a great deal of parliamentary time to such matters, but given what we ask of our servicemen and women, that is only right and proper.

David Wright: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) in this afternoon's important debate on defence in the UK. I shall address my remarks to issues surrounding Shropshire and the civilians who work for the Ministry of Defence there. I shall then raise a couple of points about policy to which I hope that the Minister will listen.
	Before that, I pay tribute to those who run the armed forces parliamentary scheme, especially Sir Neil. I have been on the scheme over the past 12 months or so with the Royal Marines. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience, and was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). We had some interesting times, especially in northern Norway when we slept out in a tent in temperatures between minus 32 and 34 C. We got a rounded view of how the Royal Marines operate. The scheme should continue to receive the support of Parliament and hon. Members.
	Increasinglyand thankfullyMembers of Parliament do not in large part have the opportunity to serve their country in the field of conflict. Although that is a good thing, it is important for people to go out and get a taste of military life, and the armed forces parliamentary scheme enables them to do that.
	Before I speak generally about civilian posts in the Ministry of Defence in Shropshire, it is important that I pay tribute to members of our armed forces throughout the globe who are serving us in these difficult times. They do a tremendous job. The Royal Marines are deployed out there, as are other parts of our armed forces. We should pay tribute to them wholeheartedly this afternoon for the work that they do on our behalf.
	I am worried about several of the changes that the Government are proposing to the civilian structures that service and serve the Ministry of Defence. I want to raise three particular concerns. The first relates to the Donnington site, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is in the Chamber today. The site is large and significant; it is affectionately known locally as the depot and has provided a large number of jobs over many years for people across Telford, the Wrekin and the wider Shropshire area. We received some difficult news earlier this year when the Government announced that they were planning to review and indeed lay off members of staff in the Army Base Repair Organisation at Donnington. They also announced a further phase of reviews. Last week, the Minister of State announced a further 628 job losses at the ABRO site up to 2010. I, other Members and the local community were devastated at that news.
	The future for Donnington is not all dark, however. The future defence supply chain initiative has been rescued for Donnington. We shall still have a Ministry of Defence presence at the site and there may be some scope for jobs growth in the FDSCI structure. Of course, that is at the expense of the closure of the base at Stafford and I hope that some posts may move from there to the Donnington site. However, the news about ABRO is devastating for local communities and I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to meet us to talk about the issues.

David Wright: My hon. Friend is right. We may be taking a step too far with some of the proposals for privatisation and the business structures relating to the supply chain, maintenance structures and services that the Donnington work force perform so well. We shall be debating those issues with the Minister over the coming months. There is an opportunity for us to discuss the outline business case that has been drawn up. My understanding from the trade unions, whose representatives have seen the outline case document, is that it does not discuss in detail the advantages of retaining jobs and services at Donnington. We shall certainly want to focus on that issue when we talk to the Minister in the coming weeks.
	One of the best apprenticeship schemes is run from the ABRO site at Donnington. It is a shame that we may lose an extremely good scheme that not only serves the MOD but provides skills for people who go into the private sector. Those are high-value, high-quality jobs and we need to try to work together to defend them.
	It would also help if the Minister could say something, perhaps in his winding-up speech, about possible Government support for the proposed rail freight terminal in the north Telford area, which straddles my constituency and that of the hon. Member for The Wrekin. It would be particularly positive if the Government could help us to ensure that that terminal is built in Telford, using a mix of MOD land and land owned by the public. That could bring several hundred jobs into the local economy. I hope that Ministers will look closely at the options and the proposals made by the local authority to develop a rail freight terminal on that site, which, I repeat, is fondly known as the depot.
	The second sort of work that goes on in the wider Telford and The Wrekin area is that of the Equipment Support Procurement and Provision Agency, which is located in my constituency at Stafford Park. Constituents of the hon. Member for The Wrekin also work at that facility and we are both extremely concerned about its future and ongoing activities. ESPPA was formed in 1995 from the technical equipment division at Donnington, the procurement branch at Andover and the vehicle spares division at Chilwell. More than 400 employees work at Sapphire House, where ESPPA is located.
	Proposals are being considered to collocate that facility at Abbey Wood in Bristol. That is extremely alarming to local employees and local trade unions. I have met the trade unions who represent members at that facility, and they are finding it difficult to determine exactly what the Government's proposals are. There is great concern that Ministers are getting to a point where they almost have a fait accompli and that the facilities offered at Sapphire House will almost automatically move to Abbey Wood. I should like to raise that incredibly important issue again with the Minister at our meeting on 29 November.
	It is important that the jobs at ESPPA stay in Telford for a number of reasons. I do not think that the 400-plus people will redeploy to Bristol. They will probably have to find jobs in the wider economy. I do not want that to happen; I want those jobs to stay in Telford. The MOD will find it incredibility difficult to recruit staff in Bristol, certainly skilled staff. These are skilled jobs. Those people procure products for the armed forces. It will be difficult to replace them when most of them will not want to move from the Telford area. Of course, it is also more expensive to live in Bristol and I am sure that many people will not want to move because the costs of living are greater there.
	Salaries will be greater for the MOD in the Bristol area. One of Telford's great advantages is that it represents excellent value for money in terms of costs to the MOD. Such a move would run counter to the principles of the Lyons review. That is also the case for ABRO. We should ensure that defence has a footprint right across the UK, including the midlands and the north. Moving jobs to the south of England is symptomatic of our not having a footprint right across the UK. That is somewhat alarming. I want to raise issues that relate to ABRO as well as ESPPA with the Minister on 29 November, and I hope that we will be joined by trade union colleagues.
	The third issue that I want to talk about is the defence training review at Cosford, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for The Wrekin. We obviously share the fact that many of our constituents are employed there. I do not want to say too much about Cosfordthe hon. Gentleman will probably have quite a lot to say about itbut it is important to note that there are 1,038 military jobs at Cosford and 942 civilian and contractor posts, as far as I am aware, and it is a jobs engine for our local economy.
	The defence training review is being examined at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) will also be interested in the outcome of that review. Cosford presents the opportunity to provide an excellent location for defence training in the UK. The site could expand by up to 300 per cent. in a number of scenarios. That would give us a real opportunity to provide new jobs, which are so important in the Shropshire economy, and which will service not just Telford and Wrekin residents, but the black country and the wider west midlands area.
	I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the proposals relating to Cosford and the defence training review. It is an incredibly important site for us. In some ways, we are an RAF county, with the RAF presence at Shawbury and Cosford, and the RAF has a long tradition of being in Shropshire. I hope that we will continue to have that presence in the county and see it expanded over time.
	This is a big contract. I understand that two competitors, with two separate sites, have emerged to be examined by Government, and I understand that that decision may be some time away, but it is important that the Minister should once again engage more generally with regard to the importance of defence training jobs within the wider Shropshire economy.
	I close by looking at two broader policy issues that have already been raised in the debate. The first relates to our independent nuclear deterrent and the second to community ownership of the armed forces. Clearly, we will have to make some decision in the coming months and years about whether we retain an independent nuclear deterrent. The manifesto on which I stood understandably commits us to retention of that independent deterrent, but I hope that we will have a wide-ranging debate about how appropriate that is, in the sense that the world has changed somewhat. Certainly, a replacement for Trident would be extremely expensive.
	I put it clearly on the record that I would support the Government and vote for the replacement of the independent nuclear deterrent. I am not suggesting that we abandon it, but I am not sure that we need to go for an extremely expensive deterrent option. We must look at a raft of options. We may have to consider nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, which may be deployed from different platforms. We need a wide-ranging debate on that and to think about the money that we are spending. Certainly the concern of members of the armed forces is that, if we are to deploy troops effectively in a modern environment and meet the challenges that now face us as a country, we need to invest significantly in flexible response conventional forces.

David Wright: That is an interesting point, but times have moved on. I hope that I have made my position very clear this afternoon. Does the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) wish to intervene?

Mark Pritchard: No, I was just stretching.

David Wright: I apologise. I was willing to let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
	My position is clear. I support the retention of an independent nuclear deterrent, but we need to consider a range of costed options before we decide to commit.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased by what the right hon. Gentleman says about the possibility of the Defence Committee undertaking an inquiry on the issue. Could it do so in combination with the Foreign Affairs Committee, so that issues of non-proliferation and disarmament could be considered? They are also part of the debate and should form part of the discussion.

James Arbuthnot: I shall draw that question to the attention of my Committee. It is an interesting idea and it would not be right for me to rule it out or in. I shall leave that to the Committee in its wisdom, which isI thinkgreat.
	We have not yet found the right formula for these debates on defence in the UK. Defence always used to be debated in relation to what we did overseas, because of the expeditionary strategy that this country always used to follow. However, it is good to remember our history. Trafalgar was an overseas event, despite the fact that the name now sounds English to our ears. I wish to draw attention to the outstanding celebrations this year of the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar and, unusually perhaps, to pay particular tribute to my great-great-great-great-grandfather, a captain at Trafalgar who sadly had his head blown off on the day. His memorial is next to Nelson's in St. Paul's cathedral.
	The role of defence in the UK was drawn starkly to our attention on 7 July, when we discovered that the threat is as much at home as it is abroad. The Defence Committee suggested in an earlier report that the Government had relied too much on the expeditionary strategy. It said:
	the MOD is giving insufficient priority to the role which the Armed Forces may in the future be called upon to fulfil in respect of the defence of the homeland.
	The Government soundly rejected that. Their reply said:
	current Defence policy rightly emphasises the role of the Armed Forces in supporting wider foreign and security policy objectives. But . . . the Armed Forces contribute specific capabilities to standing home commitments and are held ready to support the civil authorities if requested to do so.
	I am glad that the Government said that, because we must not forget the experience of the United States in the dreadful tragedy of New Orleans, when it was discovered that too many of their troops had been called overseas to Iraq and were no longer able perform the home support role with their previous facility. Every decision that we take on overseas engagement has consequences. Next year, 8,000 troops will be in Iraq and we do not yet know how many will be in Afghanistan. There will also be troops in the Balkans, Northern Irelandnot that that is abroad, of courseGermany, Cyprus, the Falklands and Brunei.
	The Minister said that he will never tire of paying tribute to the commitment, dedication and bravery of our forces, and neither will I. We will always say that. At the end of the cold war, we decided that it was right to reduce our spending on defence and cut troop numbers. That was a mistake, although I did not think so at the time. It was a mistake that we all made, but we have discovered since the 1990s that the world did not become safer or more secure after the cold war; it needed more troops, not fewer. Nevertheless, ever since then we have seen a rundown in the number of our troops. We need to reverse that mistake. Pressures abroad have consequences at homein overstretch and in breaches of the harmony guidelinesand the Committee will certainly have to keep a very close eye on that. Recruitment is therefore a difficult, important issue.
	I have the impression that the Ministry of Defence is not sure why recruitment is so difficult. I have the impression, too, from something that the Secretary of State said, that he is not entirely sure what we can do about it. I have one suggestion. The Chief of the Defence Staff suggested on Sunday morning that reputational issues and matters such as Deepcut have consequences for armed forces recruitment, and I think that he must be right about that.
	The Committee published a valuable report earlier this year on the duty of care. We will begin to recruit at the necessary level only if we in the House and in the country show an absolute determination to treat our troops outstandingly well, both in their service and in their training. A good demonstration of that, if I may make a suggestion to the Minister who will be replying to the debate, would be made by implementing by the Committee's strong recommendation for an independent tribunal to look into complaints against the armed forces. The independence of that tribunal is essential. It would require a very deep change in mindset in the MOD, but it would be good for the MOD, good for our armed forces and very good indeed for the country.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased to able to take part in the debate. Unfortunately, the Minister of State would not give way to me earlier when I tried to intervene about human resources. I wanted to make the point that when there are media stories and court cases concerning appalling harassment of certain individualswomen and gay and lesbian officersin the armed forces, there has at the very least to be the most rigorous examination of the facts, but there also has to be action to ensure that the culture does not continue. It would be helpful if the entire report on Deepcut were made available, so that we could all be assured that no residual culture of harassment remained in the armed forces. Such reports and stories must have an effect on recruitment, and therefore have to be dealt with.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) raised several issues about recruitment; clearly there is an enormous problem. Part of that problem is the question of rights within the service, but the disenchantment of many members of the public with the policies in Iraq is part of it, too. I have met the families of some of the soldiers who laid down their life in Iraq. Some feel very angry, some feel very bitter and some feel that the soldiers were misled into going to war. The atmosphere surrounding the question of Iraq has had a huge effect on recruitment. Clearly, many people do not want to face up to that, but they will have to face up to the sense of disillusionment with the policies in Iraq.
	I make a couple of brief points about Iraq and then talk mainly about nuclear weapons and the Trident replacement. In 2003 the House voted to go to war in Iraq to support the Government's strategy there. We still have 8,000 troops in Iraq, and have lost nearly 100 British troops. Nearly 2,000 US soldiers have laid down their lives, and an unknown number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians have died. According to The Lancet, as many as 100,000 may have died in the conflict. It is perfectly reasonable to ask how much longer troops will be there, and whether the mere presence of British and American forces has not become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. They may be attracting insurgent attacks, rather than achieving a solution to the obvious problems. While we are fed a diet of news about the problems in Iraq, we are not necessarily told that a significant number of Iraqi politicians, including those elected to the Iraqi Parliament who strongly oppose

Jeremy Corbyn: I have no intention of turning it into a debate on Iraq, but Iraq is an important factor in British military expenditure and the approach taken by the Ministry of Defence. It is clearly central to the Ministry's policy making. When the Secretary of State replies to the debate, as I am sure he will, I hope that he can tell us when those 8,000 troops will come home. At the moment, it appears that it will be December 2006 at the earliest. In view of the disturbing news earlier this week about the use of phosphorus by United States and British forces, we want an assurance that chemical weapons will not be used in any form, even as an incendiary device to guide others into an attack, because of the danger of their use against civilians, which is illegal under the 1925 convention on chemical warfare.
	Turning to the important matter of this country's future nuclear policy, I am a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, as is well known, and I chair the parliamentary CND group. The arguments against the nuclear deterrent are very strong, and we need to have a serious public debate about it. I therefore welcome what a number of hon. Members have said, particularly the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who chairs the Select Committee on Defence and said that it may be prepared to undertake an investigation or inquiry into the matter. I repeat what I said in my intervention, when he kindly gave way to me. The Defence Committee ought to be joined by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Defence Committee has responsibility for defence matters, but it does not have responsibility for disarmament policy nor, indeed, for the operation of the non-proliferation treaty, which is clearly relevant. I therefore hope that that suggestion will be considered seriously by both Committees, because it would make an important contribution to the public debate.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) talked about US strategy, which includes full-spectrum dominance and thus the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. Indeed, there are many signs that the US is already spending very large sums of money on preparing for a post-Trident world, but that does not mean that the UK should do so. We must consider two things: first, our existing expenditure; and, secondly, what happens afterwards. I recently asked the Secretary of State about the cost of running AWE Aldermaston and capital investment in the base. I was astonished to learn that over the past five years, AWE Aldermaston has cost 1.5 billion of the defence budget, of which almost 100 million has been spent on capital investment in the past year. I would be interested to know what that capital investment was. I hope the money was not spent on preparation for, or manufacture of, a new generation of nuclear weapons to succeed Trident. We have been told, and I accept that we were told in good faith, that no decision has been made on a post-Trident world through the refurbishment of Trident or some new nuclear weapons system.
	It is worth thinking for a moment about the costs involved. They are huge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) pointed out. The original cost of Trident was 12.52 billion and the annual running costs are about 1.5 billion. Trident's lifespan was predicted to be 30 years. The Trident refit that is taking place at Devonport docks in Plymouth was estimated in 1997 to cost 650 million, but it is already running at almost 1 billionabout a third more than the original estimate. It is not a cheap system, even with the current refit. A replacement of Trident would cost around 25 billion. There is a great deal else that one could spend such a sum onnot least, it would allow us to meet the UN millennium development goals every year for the next six years. It is important that in the debate we throw all these factors into the equation.
	The wider question is how secure the world is with nuclear weapons or with Trident. If we replace Trident nuclear missiles, we will be running contrary to the rule and expectation of the non-proliferation treaty. Although it puts the five declared nuclear weapons states in a special position, it does not allow them to develop new generations of nuclear weapons while at the same time saying that the signatory nations to the non-proliferation treaty cannot develop their own nuclear weapons. If we do not want proliferation, a good example must be set by the five declared nuclear weapons states. I hope the UK does not develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. I do not believe them to bring security. I believe them to be immoral and dangerous, and to encourage others to develop nuclear weapons.
	The Secretary of State said that there must be a public debate on the matter. We all welcome that. It would be helpful if, in his reply, he could set out the options, the cost of the existing system, the cost of replacement and the legal opinion with respect to the non-proliferation treaty, so that there can be a serious, informed public debate about it. That debate will take place anyway in the public arena. It is extremely important that it also takes place in the Chamber and in the Committees of the House.
	We are debating defence. The world is obviously not a simple or a stable place. We must ask ourselves whether such fantastic levels of expenditure on defence make the world a safer place, or whether we would be better off spending a little more energy addressing issues of inequality, poverty and instability around the world, rather than assuming that there is a military solution to every problem. I say that because I want to see a more peaceful world, as does the entire House, I am sure. The possession or development of nuclear weapons does not bring that about.

Ann Winterton: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly in this important and wide-ranging debate on defence in the United Kingdom. I begin by paying tribute to the members of the armed services who serve this country so well. We are very proud of them, of the standards that they set and of what they achieve.
	I shall also pay a brief tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who this afternoon made his last appearance at the Dispatch Box. He has given long and distinguished service in the House, and perhaps he will feel happier at laying down the burdens that that has placed upon his shoulders. He will be much missed, but I can assure him that in stepping down, he will rediscover the freedom and independence that Members on the Back Benches are allowed in some small measure from time to time.
	The Minister has made it clear in numerous written answers that the final structure of the Territorial Army will be confirmed by the end of the year. That announcement about the future is vital, because the TA is in dire straitsone might say meltdown. All we have to go on is the announcement made on 16 December last year by the Chief of the General Staff to the Army chain of command on the Future Army Structure ReservesStructural Changes, which will take place around 200708 following the planned amalgamation and disbandment of regular infantry regiments, I presume.
	In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies given by the Minister at Defence questions on Monday to two of my hon. Friends who asked questions about TA recruitment, I want briefly to pursue the issue. It is all very well stating that reserve forces will carry out certain tasks and specialist activities to supplement the regular forces, but that surely depends on available manpower. It will be interesting to learn the actual size of TA that the MOD is seeking. At present, the TA is 15 per cent. under strength and overall numbers are falling. As has been said, the current requirement for TA personnel is 41,610, but the actual figure is 35,560, which is the lowest since the TA was founded in 1907.
	The Minister asserted on Monday that the fall in TA manning has already been reversed. However, I understand that the number of resignations exceeds the number of people who have passed basic training and are fit for deployment, which is a direct consequence of the Iraq war. For the first six months of the war, resignations stood at an average of 162 people a month. From September 2003 until August this year, the average jumped up to 540 resignations a month. That point was highlighted in The Guardian this weekI hasten to add that I do not read that newspaper regularlyin an article based on parliamentary questions entitled, Civilians who signed up to serve in the TA speak for the first time about why they have handed in their kit for good, which is a matter of great concern for everyone.
	A tremendous physical and financial effort has gone into recruitment, which has fallen by 35 per cent. in the past eight financial years. In 199798, there were 10,400 recruits; in 200405, that figure decreased to 6,900 recruits, with the costs of recruitment doubling. In 200102, expenditure on recruitment was 5 million, increasing to 10.5 million in 200405. Those recruitment figures require further study because from 1 March 2003 to 30 June 2005, some 3,800 people were recruited as infantry TA privates, yet only 1,300 of them completed phases 1 and 2 of basic training, and 1,960 privates left the TA in the same period.
	More than 35 per cent. of the TA have not collected their financial bounty. That figure of 12,010 individuals is, coincidentally, exactly the same as the number of individuals whom the MOD claims are still available for deployment. I respectfully suggest that that might not be true.

John Smith: It is always a privilege to take part in defence debates for the important reason that it gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women in this country and throughout the world who do such an excellent job.
	I had the privilege of accompanying the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) on a visit to RAF Marham yesterday, and I would like to place on record my thanks to Group Captain Bagwell and the team at Marham for showing members of the Select Committee on Defence the superb job that they do and their commitment and professionalism in carrying out duties on our behalf. When we left, every member of the Select Committee felt the same. However, there is a difference between being able to undertake duties with professionalism and commitment and being given duties and responsibilities that people should not have to accept. I intend to discuss that this afternoon.
	I agreed almost entirely with the opening speech from the Government Front Bench. [Interruption.] I said almost entirely. I am a great supporter and extremely proud of the Government's defence policy. Our strategic defence review is one of the best reviews of any military in NATO and much of the rest of the world. The new chapter and White Paper followed as a result of the changing threats worldwide. The White Paper was a courageous document and a rational response to the threats. It called for a radical reorganisation of our assets, people and structures to create a more flexible, agile and responsive force that could have an increasingly further reach, with smaller packages carrying a bigger and better punch.
	That model is emulated in other NATO countries. Last week, as part of the EU presidency, I had the privilege of attending a dinner with leading people in the defence community throughout Europe. I sat next to a person who paid tribute to the British Government's role in restructuring our armed forces. She told me that her countrya leading European countrymodelled its reform proposals on the British strategic defence review. She had been an adviser to the Minister of Defence in her country and had drawn directly on the British review in shifting from a cold war scenario to one, which, as the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire said, presents far greater and more invidious threats in many respects. It is much harder to tackle because it is so much less predictable, demanding greater responsibility, better equipment and better force structures.
	However, when I outlined to the same person the Government's proposals for providing depth support for the RAF fast jets as yet another outcome of the review and rationalisation, she listened to me in absolute disbelief. She could not believe that the British Government, who have been taking a leading role throughout NATO in reorganising their armed forces and, just as importantly, the support for their armed forces, as has been mentioned quite a lot today, had now decided to place the depth support for their elite fast jet fleets back in-house with the RAF, after taking it away from the RAF just four years ago, on the sound military grounds that since the end of the cold war there has been no military case whatever for military personnel to carry out the factory maintenance and repair of fast jets. That can be done much more successfully by civilian workers working in a commercial environment, or by outsourcing that work to the private sector, if appropriate safeguards are put in place. Giving that work back to the RAF, however, makes no sense whatever.
	We do not object to reducing the scale of logistical support. Everybody in the Chamber, on both sides of the House, knows that with the force configuration that has taken place, the over-capacity and huge duplication could not be justified. Also, as I think the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said earlier in response to the statement, nobody disagrees with a rationalisation of logistical support, which was necessary. We agree with collapsing four lines of logistics for our front-line jets to two. In layman's terms, if we think of the example of a car, it is like moving from three at depot, industry and factory level and one on the front line, to a service station on the front line and a garage to take the car to for repairs.
	It is a fundamental mistake, however, to mix the two on a front-line base, as proposed by the Government. It will put unfair pressures on our front-line airmen and women to meet operational targets on a base such as Marham, which we visited yesterday, and to carry out scheduled, planned, long-term maintenance upgrades and deep repairs. If we ask the same people to do the same job with limited resources, the danger is that we will put operational capability at risk. The bottom line is that, when push comes to shove, brave servicemen such as Group Captain Bagwell will meet his operational requirements to defend this nation every time. That is why it was proposed that the two functions should be separated in the first place.
	I note with interest that, once again, our distinguished Defence Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire, expressed dismay that when he questioned the Minister following his statement, and asked what strategy was being adopted, or what plans there were for providing deep support for the joint combat aircraft and the joint strike fighter, the Minister was not able to reply. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire expressed his disappointment because it revealed that there was no principle underlying the Government's strategy of supporting their front-line aircraft. Let us bear in mind the fact that all the scenarios that we proposeor the overwhelming majority of them in terms of security threats and entering battle zonesrequire absolute dependence on the reliability and availability of our fast jets, particularly the Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR9, for many years to come. We must therefore get this right.
	It was revealed not only that there is no principle underlying the Government's strategy, but that there is no strategy. The argument has been that we should centralise the second line of logisticsdepth supporton a military operational basis. Let me tell the House that we are centralising some at Marham with the Tornado and some at Cottesmore with the Harrier, but despite today's announcement we do not know where we are going to centralise the depth support for the joint combat aircraft or the joint strike fighter. In his statement last week on the modernisation of logistics, the Minister failed to say where the Hawk training jets were going, but he did say that half or perhaps more than half of the RAF's rotary wing fleet is rolling back into one centralised unitwith the exception, I believe, of the Merlin and the Puma which are going, quite frankly, God knows where.
	The point that I am making is that there is no rationale running through the policy on depth support. If there were a clear and transparent rationale, many hon. Members would have no difficulty in supporting it. I am afraid that statements that this jet is going forward and that jet is going back, or that this aircraft is going forward and that aircraft is going back, or that this helicopter is going forward and that helicopter is going back, smack of cuts for cuts' sake rather than a rationalisation. As I said, I would have no trouble supporting a proper rationalisation. There is a huge difference between saving money for defence by cutting costs and saving money for the front line by introducing genuine efficiency gains. Quite frankly, this stinks of cutting costs. In my opinion, it is even worse than that, because there is serious danger of undermining front-line capability.
	The House will know that in March 2004 the Harrier was rolled forward to Cottesmore. In a speech in July this year, I explained to the House that it has been a costly mistake. Indeed, the cost of carrying out the work is escalating out of control. It was originally intended to be carried out by military personnel, but they cannot cope with the work, so an increasing number of civiliansalmost 100 at present, employed by BAE Systemsare supporting it.
	I have to apologise, because I told the House in July that it was taking an average of 200 days to turn round a HarrierGR9, if upgraded, or GR7 if notas compared with 100 days under the old depth support arrangements at DARA St. Athan, under which civilians carried out the work in a commercial and centralised environment as they should. One of the biggest military aviation hangars in the world had only just been constructed. It opened only earlier this year and had 47 purpose-built bays to provide depth support for the entire fleet of fast jets in the RAF. It was the size of six football pitches and cost 80 millionbut, no, that is not going ahead and it is being broken up.
	I told the House in July, as I said, that it was taking 200 days at Cottesmore compared with 100 days at St. Athan under the older arrangements. In the contract bid for that work, it would have taken 60 days to turn those aircraft round. I was wrong, because it takes 232 days to turn round those aircraftfour times longer than it would have done if the aircraft had remained at St. Athan. That is only a small part of the fleet, yet we are now proposing to put the lion's share and major part of our front-line fleetthe Tornado aircrafton these military operational bases.
	I am deeply concerned about the effect on the future availability of our aircraft. In ministerial replies to questions, I have been told that Harrier availability has increased dramatically since the roll forward to Cottesmore and that turn-round times are quicker. That is not trueand the evidence that shows that is available and has been presented to the Minister. Instead of openly and transparently challenging the evidence, the MOD has shut down the computer logistics information technology system that makes the information available, to ensure that no one finds out either the true cost or the amount of time spent on the work.
	I ask the Government for what must be the third or fourth time to think very carefully about this issue. Even if they are sticking to their principleif it is a principleof rolling forward the Tornado to Marham, for goodness' sake, they should look very carefully at and evaluate the effects of rolling forward the Harrier. We must find ways to retain this capabilitydoing so in-house is one optionthat do not involve a sole monopoly supplier such as BAE Systems. I cannot see how we could incentivise a sole supplier of a service, given that there would be no alternative competitor or in-house provision to turn to in order to reduce costs. I predict that costs will escalate out of control. We must look at other options, such as slowing this process down or retaining, as I said, in-house capability one way or another, be it through the private sector or through the Defence Aviation Repair Agency in St. Athan. We must do so for the future of the British military.
	In the few seconds remaining to me, I finish by saying that I hope that defence training rationalisation will come to St. Athan.

James Gray: The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) and I have three things in common, the first of which is our ability to watch the clock; I greatly admire the tremendous precision with which he did so. Our second thing in common is our less than slavish support for Government defence policy; despite what he said at the outset, he proved to be rather critical of it. Our third common factor is that we are very strong supporters of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I fear that I am something of an anorak on this subject, having completed undergraduate and postgraduate study on it. Most recently, I graduated from the Royal College of Defence Studies, having enjoyed the careful tending of Sir Neil Thorne, to whom we all pay tribute.
	That experience from last year has been combined with two or three other, more recent experiences. I am a visiting parliamentary fellow of St. Antony's College, Oxford, which discusses issues such as those before us. I am also chairman of the all-party group on the Army, and a member of the Court of Assistants of the Honourable Artillery Company, my former Territorial Army regiment. All those experiences have enabled me to put together a number of thoughts in recent months. A debate such as this is an occasion not only to talk about the detailed issues to which Members have referred, but to reflect a little more widely on what we are seeking to do in our defence policy, and how we intend to do it.
	We have reached a very significant point in world history and defence history. We must consider not only the challenges that our defence forces face and the tasks that they must carry out, but the resources that they are given to enable them do so. It used to be easy: it was plain what our defence forces had to do. We had to defeat communism; to remove the Argentines from the Falkland Islands; to sort things out in Sierra Leone. Even as recently as the conflict in Afghanistan, it was perfectly plain that, post-9/11, we had to do something, and sorting out al-Qaeda in Afghanistan seemed like the right thing to do. I have to say, however, that I am one of those who are by no means convinced that we achieved that task. Equally, I was one of few voices in my party who were by no means convinced that we had justification under international law to do what we eventually did in Iraq. Again, I am by no means convinced that we achieved our aims.
	Leaving those issues to one side, the reality is that we no longer have clear tasks, because we do not have such an enemy any more. The enemy of peace in the world today is not a person invading somewhere else; it is not Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. Today's enemy is invisible, diverse and unknown. He is ready to sacrifice his own life in a way that we have never seen before in terrorist activities. It was reasonably easy to defeat the IRA. On pointing a weapon at an IRA soldier's headI use the word soldier looselyhe laid down his weapons. On pointing a weapon at an al-Qaeda terrorist's head, the likelihood is that he will blow himself up, taking a lot of other people with him. That is an enemy very different from any that we have seen before.
	Much fundamental thought needs to be given to how to defeat such a terrorist. Do we do so by shooting him? Can we defeat him through direct, conventional operations? To some degree, of course, we can. If we can shoot Saddam Husseinsorry, I meant to say the terrorist[Interruption.] I should point out, incidentally, in response to a sedentary observation from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that many people would have liked Saddam Hussein to be shot.
	How do we fight terrorism? Terrorism is a many-headed Hydra: taking out a terrorist carries the risk that 10,000 more will be created. Sorting out international terrorism is a much more complicated business than our beloved Prime Minister and the President of the US have led us to believe in recent years. They have tended to say that the war against terrorism is a matter of fighting the bad guys, and that our forces will ride in like the sheriff on his horse and take them out. Not so long ago, I heard Richard Perle saying that people could join the President's posse if they wanted to. The notion is that we are the good guys, and thus entitled to take out the bad guys.
	I, for one, do not believe that defence today is anything like so simple. It is a great deal more complicated, but I still have great faith in my former regiment's mottoArma pacis fulcra. It means, Arms are the Balance of Peace, and I am sure that that is right.
	The cold war demonstrated as much. Our independent nuclear deterrent won the cold war for us. For some 20 years, the Labour party wanted to get rid of it. If that had happened, the Russians and communism would have won. We would not be where we are today if we had done what Labour wanted and disarmed, and the same is true now. We cannot defeat al-Qaeda or international terrorism by laying down our arms, so we need a sensible military deterrence to sort out the terrorist threat.
	How do we deploy our conventional military assets so that they deter terrorists? That is a key question, and we must be careful about how we answer it. The tragedy of the South American person killed in error by the police on the underground is a good demonstration of that. Should we have been using dum-dum bullets against someone who turned out to be perfectly innocent? What weapons should we use to deter terrorist activity?
	I want to contemplate for a moment what we have done in Iraq. Is it right to build up our conventional forces and deploy them as we have in Iraq, given what might happen elsewhere in the world? Next year, we will seek to deploy a second Army group in Afghanistan, which will mean that we have two such groups deployed in the world. That exceeds what was foreseen in the strategic defence review, so what will happen to overstretch? I shudder to think of the consequences in that regard.
	I have watched our armed forces at work over many years, and I know that service personnel will brace up, salute, turn to the right and march off and do whatever we ask of them. The people who talk incessantly about overstretch demean the capabilities and determination of our very professional armed services. There is no question but that they are up to any job that they given.
	However, the more we ask our armed forces to do, the harder the task will be if we do not give them the appropriate resources. Our deployment in Afghanistan is due to be increased next year, but who knows what else might happen around the world. What will happen if there is another Sierra Leone orGod forbid!an increase in violence in Northern Ireland? If anything like that arose, the elastic would be stretched to its maximum.
	In that respect, I am more critical of the Government even than the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith). Our Army is close to being the smallest since the battle of Waterloo. A force with 100,000 people or fewer does not deserve the name Army. At such a size, we are talking about a home defence force.
	In that context, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), who spoke with great knowledge and expertise about the Territorial Army. The commanding officer of the Honourable Artillery Company, my own regiment, said only the other day that the Government were using the TA as cheap labour to bridge the gap in their defence budgets. The Government have made deep cuts in the Army and have used the TA to plaster over the gaps, but that cannot go on.
	I have some experience of the TA, and can tell the House that its personnel will accept a deployment of six months or 12 months. However, if the law were to be changed to allow them to be required to accept another compulsory deployment, the boys would not do so. They are professional people, with jobs and families to think about. They are prepared to serve the nation once, but the possibility that they might do so more than once is remote.
	I suspect that the crisis involving recruitment and retention in the TA is worse than it appears, because an awful lot of the people who have come back have not yet handed in their uniforms. They are not necessarily turning up at the drill halls, but are waiting to collect their bounties. If there were a huge crisis that demanded a substantial deployment of the Territorial Army, I suspect that the people would not be there. If that were the case, the regular Army would be left high and dry. The same situation arises in other areas owing to what the Government are doing on procurement and the provision of equipment, and the number of people who are on the ground.
	The strategic defence review did not foresee the situation that we are in, and nor did the Government. They will not tell us in any detail how they would handle a significant increase in military threat throughout the world. They seem to be sitting on their hands and hoping like heck that that does not happen. There are significant signs that suggest that the elastic that is our highly professional armed forces is being stretched to its maximum. If there were a crisisI hope that there will not be onewho knows what would happen to that elastic.

Kevan Jones: I echo the tributes that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) paid to our men and women in the armed forces. We often take them for granted. They make difficult decisions and find themselves in difficult situations, so it is right to start a speech in such a debate by paying tribute to them.
	I welcomed the speech made by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). He is the new Chair of the Defence Committee, to which I have been reappointed for this Parliament. I echo his views about the previous Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I did not get on with my right hon. Friend on all occasions, but I was thinking the other day that his absence is a little bit like toothacheone misses it when it is gone. He made a great contribution on defence in the House over the years, which has clearly been recognised by many right hon. and hon. Members.
	I want to talk about the importance of the UK defence industry to defence in the UK and the deployments that we ask our men and women to undertake around the world. I shall do that by concentrating on two issues: first, the future rapid effect system; and secondly, the future shipbuilding strategy for UK yards.
	The international situation these days is setting new challenges for the armed forces. The need for lighter and more manoeuvrable forces is clearly evident. The tasks that we will ask our armed forces to undertake in the future are likely to be smaller in scale than in the past, conducted at short notice, and carried out some distance from the UK. That explains why it is important to develop a medium-weight land capability that could be deployable by air and effective in acute and dangerous situations.
	Few would dispute the fact that it is important that FRES is delivered on time, on budget and up to specification. As General Sir Mike Jackson told the Royal United Services Institute last year:
	It is . . . clear to me that the concept of the Future Rapid Effect System is critical to the British Army's . . . capability.
	No one should doubt the scale of the task that faces the Ministry of Defence in delivering on time and to specification. The new medium-weight armoured vehicle will be totally network enabled and full of computers and new technology. It represents the largest single project that the MOD has undertaken in peacetime. It will be an important piece of kit for the next 20 to 30 years for the British Army. It is thus vital that we have a defined in-service date, but this is where I find that answers given by the MOD, with its usual culture of denial, are a little unclear.
	The generally quoted in-service date for FRES was 2009. In late 2004, the then Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Bach, said that the date would definitely be 2009. He said that
	we think it achievable otherwise we would not say it is.
	In fairness, I realise that that does not mean that the entire fleet of vehicles would be fully operational, because there will be a family of vehicles with different capabilities. In October 2004, in reply to the Defence Committee's procurement report, the MOD said that
	our planning assumption for FRES remains to introduce early variants around the end of the decade.
	However, when I questioned General Sir Mike Jackson in the Defence Committee in January 2005, he said that he doubted that FRES would be available by 2010.
	To try to obtain some answers, I tabled a written question to the Secretary of State. I was grateful but intrigued by the answer from the Minister of State, who said:
	The in-service date will not be fully endorsed until the main investment decision, but our current planning assumption is that the early variants of FRES will be introduced into service early in the next decade, with a phased approach to achieving full operational capability thereafter.[Official Report, 9 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 556W.]
	We have gone from Ministers openly talking about an in-service date of 2009 to a position where the Minister will not be pinned down on what the date will be. That makes me wonder what, if anything in FRES, will be delivered on time.
	The Government's response to the Select Committee report referred to
	planning on the incremental development of an interim medium weight capability, using existing vehicles where appropriate.
	Yet when General Fulton appeared before the Select Committee he said that there was an option. He said that
	there is a very clear choice to be made between what I might call not-FRES and FRES. Not-FRES we could go out into the market today and buy a light armoured vehicle, and there are a number on the market . . . The assessment phase needs to answer for me the question can we have FRES in a timescale acceptable to my end customer or we have got to spend money on not-FRES in the interim?
	That is the challenge that faces the British Army. I am increasingly sceptical about whether FRES will be introduced anywhere near the end of the decade. People ask why that matters. It matters because our existing kit is getting older and there will be a capability gap if FRES or some variant of it does not come on board.
	British industry faces another problemplanning to ensure that we have the capability to produce in the UK the variants of FRES and other armoured vehicles in the future. The current programme of Alvis Vickers, or BAE Systems Land Systems as it is now, shows that there is a real problem. There are gaps in the company's work over the next two or three years. Again, people ask why that matters. It matters because we cannot keep a skilled work force together and assume that we can turn on the tap two or three years later when we want to procure an armoured vehicle. Planning is needed to ensure that industry is taken into consideration.
	I welcomed the appointment of Lord Drayson as the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement. This month, when he appeared before the Select Committee he showed his understanding of industrial processes, and I await his defence industrial strategy with eager anticipation. We need to do two things: first, we must deliver on time and on budget equipment to our armed forces; and secondly, we need to realise that if we are to maintain a viable and vibrant defence manufacturing industry we must plan our procurement. Clearly the Defence Procurement Agency had an atrocious record on that in the past.
	I want to deal with the shipbuilding strategy. I welcome the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his opening address that 14 billion will be spent on procuring new ships for the Royal Navy over the next 10 years. However, I am sceptical about whether they will actually be built in the UK. There will be a glut of work, with the new carrier vessel future and the military afloat reach and sustainabilityMARSprogramme, but there are worrying signs that unless a clear strategy underpins development in the yards we shall not have the capacity to build those ships in the UK. The idea of building our warships abroad, possibly in eastern Europe, would be a complete tragedy.
	There is a notionthere certainly was when the Conservatives were in powerthat shipbuilding is an old smokestack industry. I would challenge anyone who thought that to visit a modern shipyard. Not only do they use cutting-edge technology in fabrication, but electronics and so on. It is far from a smokestack industry. We need a clear strategy to ensure that the industry in this country has the necessary capacity and we should encourage apprenticeships and expertise in those areas. If we fail to do that, I fear that, when we finally come round to procuring ships in the future, we will not have the necessary capacity or skills base, which is vital.In the next 12 months the Government need to lay out that strategy, not just for shipbuilding but for other parts of defence manufacturing. I hope that we do not go down the road of thinking that purchasing our equipment from abroad would be cheaper somehow. Clearly, if work is not forthcoming there will be knock-on social effect on many of those communities throughout country.
	I want to refer to the ongoing saga of the alternative landing ship logistics, which has a lot of credence locally in the north-east, given the involvement of Swan Hunter. I am concerned about that programme. Clearly, extra money is rightly being spent to finish it. I visited Scotstoun yard in Glasgow a couple of weeks ago to see the two BAE Systems vessels being procured. There are serious problems with that programme. We now need a clear audit of what is going wrong and what needs to be put right to get those ships delivered on time.
	I am not here to apportion blame, but some grave questions must be asked about the way in which the winning bid used an off-the-shelf Dutch design. Clearly, unrealistic estimates for the cost of those ships were included. I am also concerned that, as the ships are being delivered, possibly up to 40 variations are being made each week. I understand that Lloyd's Register will not even certificate some of the ships until some of those modifications are put right. Unless that is done, the saga will carry on. Will it cost more for the taxpayer? No doubt, it will, and I wonder why some of those things were not questioned when an off-the-shelf Dutch design was proposed as a cheap alternative by someone at Swan Hunter who may have expertise in the oil industry, but none at all in designing and building a modern warship, even logistics ships such as those in that programme.
	Shipyards must work together, but if we have no commitment to sharing work around the industry yards such as Swan Hunter will face a number of years without work. The way to ensure that that does not happen is to plan the work over the next 10 years. However, I would certainly question whether any work should go to the yard under the current management. I have nothing against the work forceI have the highest regard for the good work that they dobut there are clearly serious problems not just with the way that the work is managed, but with whether they can find the investment that is needed for a modern shipyard.
	We should not underestimate the importance of the defence industry in this country, not just in procuring the best equipment that our armed forces need, but in ensuring that we protect this country's skills base. If that is not done, we could become a country of assembly workers for other international arms manufacturers. That would be a tragedy, not just for parts of the north-east, but for many communities throughout the country.

Robert Key: Defence is the first duty of any Government but, at the moment, the defence world seems to be in a period of almost perpetual change and uncertainty. One change is the departure of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), my neighbour in Wiltshire, to whom I pay tribute for his unstinting service to our country. I look forward to him being my neighbour in Wiltshire for many years to come.
	A huge amount of change is going on all around us. There are difficult questions of procurement. There are strategic questions about whether we procure from the EU, the United States or the UK's 400,000 defence work force with their enormous skill. There are great changes afoot at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, for example, with expansion and relocation from Farnborough and Malvern to Porton Down in my constituency. There is the impact on Boscombe Down airfield of the airfield review that we heard about today, and the impact on companies such as Qinetiq, which were mentioned earlier. There are also smaller issues, such as the reconfiguration of the air squadrons. I shall be very sorry to see Southampton university air squadron leave Boscombe Down. There is massive change at Winterbourne Gunner, at the defence nuclear, biological and chemical centre, with its expansion, and at the police nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological centre, also at Winterbourne Gunner. There is concern about the future of Erskine barracks, Wilton, whether it will be relocating and to where. Will it be Solstice park? What about Upavon and Abbey Wood? There is constant change in the world of defence at the moment.
	I will take the advice of the Minister of State and talk to my local education authority about the question of presentations to schools. The tri-service presentation teams are underused. They are superb teams of people and it would be a great opportunity if they were more widely used, perhaps in schools and colleges.
	We have heard today stories of great pride in our armed forces and I have great pride, as do we all, in those who follow the flag, in the civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence, and in the private sector defence contractors and their staffs. Above all, I always remember those who gave their lives or sustained terrible injury in the service of our country. That is why we have all been so proud of the Royal British Legion in the past few weeks, centring on poppy day, on Remembrance Sunday.
	The problems of forces families continuelittle problems that they bring to their Members of Parliament. One matter that came to me again recently, as it did a decade ago, was the problem of service families obtaining commercial credit in shops because their lifestyle leads them to two-year postings, which means that they do not qualify for ordinary hire purchase agreements. I thought that we had knocked that on the head in the last Armed Forces Act, but apparently not. That matter will no doubt come up again. I served on the Committees considering the last two Armed Forces Bills, and I hope very much that I might be able to serve on the forthcoming Bill, which will be extremely important.
	On Tuesday in Westminster abbey, we had the inauguration of the Church of England General Synod. I am a member of the General Synod and it gave me enormous pride to see the forces synodical council represented in Westminster abbey, because it is part of the Church of England's synodical system, and the chaplain general's department is very important to Her Majesty's forces. I was delighted to see the recent announcement of representation for other faiths, including the Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs. But the synodical council is important. I found the summary of the minutes of its last recorded meeting at Amport house on the Ministry of Defence website, but I regret to say that although it was an hilarious account of a synodical meeting, it was dated 22 and 23 April 2002. I hope that it has met more recently than that. Perhaps it will pay more attention to its website in future.
	There is a serious side to me mentioning that because in the Church of England General Synod on Tuesday, the Bishop of Southwark initiated a debate entitled Facing the Challenge of Terrorism, on which the House of Bishops has produced a report, and part of his motion read:
	That this Synod . . . urge all political parties, in considering draft legislation to heed the clear warnings from history about the progressive erosion of fundamental rights in relation to habeas corpus, free speech and religious liberty.
	We heard during that debate moving accounts from former servicemen and civilians on various aspects, including torture. The Archbishop of Canterbury made a strong intervention, in which he said:
	Torture is an invasion of the dignity of the human person
	and urged us as a nation always to look for the moral high ground. We heard from a former distinguished soldier, who argued that, whenever the British were tempted to use torture or internment, we lost the moral high ground. He believed that we let ourselves down many years ago in Cyprus and should have learned from our experience of internment in Northern Ireland before considering locking up people without charge for the famous 90 days. He described Guantanamo Bay as a concentration camp. There was little sympathy in the Church of England General Synod for 90-day detainment without charge and less sympathy still for the religious hatred legislation.
	We need to remember in these defence debates that the expectation of many of our citizens is that the Government will take the moral high ground in controlling carefully, for example, our arms exports, especially considering the worldwide trade in small arms. We can do precious little about that. There are issues of extraterritoriality that are difficult to address, but we should do what we can and we will never regret sticking to the moral high ground.
	I congratulate the Army in particular on the way in which it looks after its training estate. It is a remarkable fact that the training estate, which covers about 125,000 hectares, is some of the best managed land in the country. The relations between the Army and civilian population are crucial. I particularly commend the work of Headquarters Army Training Estate at Westdown camp on Salisbury plain, which goes to considerable lengths to ensure that all the parish councils are told exactly what is happening. In the excellent monthly newsletter that is sent to all the parishes and to me, there are accounts of when training in live firing and artillery firing will take place in Salisbury plain west, north and east, when there will be late firing, non-firing days, air activities, helicopter night flying, aircraft trials and parachuting. I always love the monthly conservation report. This month, it includes a welcome to Rachel Crees, who works as an environmental adviser for Defence Estates. She describes touchingly how the plain is one of the most amazing landscapes in the British Isles, and it is.
	Another aspect of that work has been the extraordinary lengths to which the military have gone with the European Union life project on Salisbury plain, which ended in September. That was a 2 million scheme to look after the extensive chalk grasslands, some of the most precious in Europe. They would not be precious if it were not for the presence of the British Army for 100 years, which has kept the landscapes, flora and fauna in good order. Therefore, I congratulate all those who look after the Army lands in estates the length and breadth of the land.
	I turn to a first-order issue. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) reminded us about the Deepcut experience and how secretive and unwilling the MOD is to release information. On 18 October 2003, while he was addressing the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum, the then United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, warned that
	no threat is more serious to aviation
	than man-portable air defence systems. They are easy to use, readily available on the black market and pose an imminent and acute threat to military aircraft and civil airlines.
	There is a huge issue of principle between the British approach to secrecy and the American approach. The United States Department of Homeland Security produces an enormous amount of material, all available on the web. It tells people exactly what the United States is doing about MANPADS, counter-MANPADS operations and what the priorities are. It gives examples of commercial responses, including from BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman. It believes that those details point out to anyone of ill intent that the United States is ahead of the game. It gives confidence to the American people and acts as a deterrent by making plain what the US Government are doing about that threat. We face real problems with MANPADS. Their proliferation is a problem, with at least 500,000 around the world. They are lethal, highly portable, concealable and cheapsome are only $500. They are easy to use, so airport perimeter security needs to be improved. Different air traffic procedures are needed, such as spiral descents. I have been in one of those and it is not something that I would like to do every day. Technical countermeasures are also available, such as infrared decoy flares, direct infrared energy and missile warning systems.
	A huge effort has been made towards non-proliferation and the Government have played their part. The effort has included the Wassenaar arrangements in January 2004, the G8 action plan agreed on 2 June 2003 at Evian, the Bangkok declaration in 2003 and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe conference in July 2003. Tracing discussion of those issues in Hansard in both Houses has been an interesting experience. The trail goes cold after 1 March this year, when there was a question tabled in the other place. Two years ago, the Science and Technology Committee produced a report on the scientific response to terrorism. It came at a time when a lot else was happening and did not receive much of the spotlight.
	I was a member of the Committee at the time and we visited appropriate organisations in the United States, from the White House to the National Institutes of Health, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. The message we got wherever we wentmilitary or civilian, medical or scientificwas that the more people are told, the better they are defended and the better the deterrent effect. It is time that our Government started to place more trust in the British people. The effect on those who wish to harm us would be very positive. It would mean a tremendous change in the whole tone of secrecy in this country and I invite Ministers to consider that in partnership with other Government Departments. Part of our trouble is that the lead Department is the Home Office, which has to co-ordinate our efforts. I would not wish to go as far as the United States and set up a separate Department, but I do wish to see a Minister for homeland defence.
	The greatest strength of our democratic system is that soaring way above party politics must be leadership by democratically elected Governments. We have government by consent, which confers moral authority on the Government and involves trust between the Government and the governed. In these days of raised security thresholds, our Government must change the habit of centuries. The Government believe that it is necessary progressively to erode our fundamental rights in respect of habeas corpus, free speech and religious liberty. If we agree to lend them some of our personal freedom for the common good, the Government will have to trust the people.

Mark Pritchard: I join colleagues and hon. Members in paying tribute to Her Majesty's armed forces around the world and here in the UK, and to civilian contractors who work for the Ministry of Defence.
	I pay tribute, too, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has served on the Front Bench with distinction for many years, and to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), who gave an excellent assessment of the Government's disjointed defence policy, and was very brave to do so. I hope that his constituents will take note of his words.
	I would like to take the House on a journey to Shropshire, a fine county. As I said in my maiden speech, Shropshire has a long, proud tradition of service in Her Majesty's armed forces, both on the front line and in the defence supply chain. We have the Royal Air Force at RAF Cosford, and we have the Defence Logistics Organisation, the Army Base Repair Organisation and the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency at Donnington. Since the general electionperhaps it is not a coincidence480 job losses have been announced at the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency at Donnington. Only last week, Ministers announced a further 628 job losses, which will impact on my constituency. So there have been more than 1,000 job losses in six months.
	I am worried about the defence training review, and I have expressed my concerns to the Under-Secretary outside the Chamber. I repeat those concerns today. I hope that that review will be objective and fair, and that there will be a level playing field for the people of Shropshire, the aerospace industry and the military in the west midlands. I hope that the Minister will either confirm or deny that the Welsh Development Agency and Welsh taxpayers' money is being used to promote St. Athan in Wales over Shropshire, which is not using taxpayers' money. It is unable to use such funds through the regional development agency to promote RAF Cosford as a site for the future defence training requirements of Her Majesty's armed forces.
	Will the Government reconsider their decision to close the Army Base Repair Organisation at Donnington? I object to the decision not because it is a Labour policy, but because it is a flawed policy with a weak and thin business case. Like the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, I believe that if a sound, rational business case on cutbacks had been put before the House both last week and today, hon. Members on both sides of the House could perhaps have supported the Government. However, we seem to have cuts for cuts' sake, and as I said in an intervention, much of that is meant to release estates and assets, thus realising value from large property holdings. That money will probably not be re-invested in the back office or in front-line military capability. Who knows, perhaps it will end up going to the failing Child Support Agency or another failing Government agency or quango. No business case has been made for the cuts, and nothing that Ministers have said can reassure my constituents or me that any savings from the reconfiguration of the armed forces will assist national security or the effectiveness and efficiency of Her Majesty's armed forces. Nor will they be of wider benefit to my constituents.
	A charity dealing with combat stress is based in Newport in my constituency. Many soldiers, airmen and naval personnel who served in the first Gulf war have suffered from post-traumatic stress. If not intercepted and dealt with, after 12 months the condition turns into post-traumatic stress disorder. Will the Government commit more resources to tackle that serious problem? My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)I, too, hope they name a ship after Hampshire and, indeed, after Shropshire

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). This is the first time that some of us who have worn uniform have been able to discuss defence in general terms in this House, and I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have participated for praising the armed forces appropriately.
	It is interesting to note that our military forces are the last corner of Britain that new Labour has found it hard to change. If one goes into any barracks, sergeants' mess or officers' mess, one will see the same levels of discipline and commitment and the same standard of training as one would have found more than 100 years ago. One would probably also find the same numbers of tattoos in the soldiers barracks and the same war stories being told in the sergeants' quarters, and as many labradors in the officers' mess.
	It is ironic how well something can work when a Government leave it alone. The forces have been able to maintain a collective discipline and responsibility that has resisted political upheavals. All Governments should be grateful for that. The democracy that we enjoy today is thanks to the military of yesterday and the continuing capability and commitment of the forces today. That is why we are able to sit on the world's top table and to have an important place in NATO, the G8, the United Nations and the Commonwealth. The commitment that is shown by our armed forces is not necessarily matched by that shown by the Government. We are serving in more than 40 operations in more than 20 countries, but our forces are deeply overstretched, woefully undermanned and dangerously ill-equippedat a time when, as many hon. Members have pointed out, we are living in an increasingly dangerous world. The result is low morale and a failure to meet recruitment targets.
	There is much that the Government can do, including on recruitment. Recruitment is harder today as a result of falling birth rates, more people going into further education, and people's lack of direct exposure to the armed forces, whether in a military family or by seeing people in uniform. Today's iPod generation, as they are being called, have very different expectations from those of previous generations. The solution is to expose people to the military environment at a much earlier age.
	I pay tribute to the combined cadet force and the sea cadets, among others, which are important sources of recruitment. I recently visited the sea cadets in Bournemouth, and unfortunately found that they are woefully underfunded and looking for a new location in which to house themselves. Yet they provide huge opportunities for people from deprived backgrounds and eventually help in recruiting people into the armed forces. As we heard, the university air squadron provides 56 per cent. of our pilots. If we remove their ability to train in aeroplanes until they go to Cranwell, we are again denying ourselves a huge and important source of potential officers. I myself would not have joined the Army had I not gone through the officer training corps at university.
	It is astonishing that at a time of increased threats and more commitments, famous battalions are losing their names. We are losing four battalions outright, and at the stroke of a pen 19 regiments are to go. The Royal Gloucester, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment is to merge with the Devon and Dorset Regiment, which is to merge with the Light Infantry. I understand, although the Minister is yet to make the announcement, that they are all to be merged with my own regiment, the Royal Green Jackets, to form five rifle regiments. As for the loss of the Parachute Battalion, which is the biggest feeder into the special forces, I do not understand the logic of that at all.
	Many tributes have been paid to the Territorial Army, which is at its lowest level in terms of numbers since 1907. It is unacceptable that it should have about 41,000 personnel but in fact has only 35,000, yet the Government seem content to do little about it.
	As if cutting manpower were not enough, the real scandal concerns equipment. This is where it is interesting to have been a soldier and now to be in this House and able to look at how much is being spent and whether it is being spent wisely. We are talking about basic kitthe basic requirements that enable the soldier, sailor or pilot to do their job.
	The Eurofighter is 1.5 billion over budget and 16 months late. It is supposed to be replacing the Jaguar and the Tornado, but its introduction is slipping again and againeven though we are about to get rid of the Jaguar fleet in its entirety. The tale of the Sea Harrier jump jet is equally sad. It is supposed to be replaced by the joint strike fighter, but I am worried about that, especially as the Americans are now saying that they are going to make budget cuts. Can the Minister clarify what will happen if such budget cuts threaten the entire project?
	We do not appear to have a timetabled strategy for dealing with our aeroplanes. Even worse, we have problems with the aircraft carrier. The wranglings over the bid were appalling and we are now not even sure of the entry date. There is a litany of problems with other equipment, including the Apache helicopter, which was brought to the United Kingdom in 2001. We lack trained pilots and the helicopters were not declared operational until 2004. The aircraft weapons did not work and pilots could not communicate with ground troops. It was also 4 billion over budget.
	The same applied to the Chinook helicopters. Cockpit avionics prevented them from flying apart in cloudless skies. Those helicopters were 260 million over budget. Seventy Navy Lynx helicopters were grounded because of long-running safety problems. There were also problems with Tornado bombers, which cost 7 million each. Serious computer glitches occurred when they were introduced. When the C-130J transport planesthe replacement for the ageing Hercules systemwere brought in, they were not operational. The Parachute Regiment could not even jump out of the back.

Andrew Robathan: Defence in the United Kingdom is a fairly topical subject given the bombings in July, terrorism in the UK and so on, so one has to ask why the Labour Benches are so empty. Why are so few Labour Members of Parliament interested in the subject? That is in contrast to Conservative Membersthe best part of a dozen Conservative Back Benchers are presentyet only a Parliamentary Private Secretary and one solitary Labour Back Bencher are here. Not one new Member of Parliament in the Labour party has participated in the debate. The five Labour Members who spoke were highly or pretty critical of the Government. It must be lonely for the Under-Secretary on Treasury Bench; the bluster from the Secretary of State and the Minister of State is no substitute for good defence policy.I want to pay tribute to the excellent speech made by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who has given long service to our party, this Parliament and the country over a number of years.
	A great many Membersthe hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), for Telford (David Wright), for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)raised the question of a full-scale debate and consultation on the future of the nuclear deterrent. We know, because the Government have told us, that a decision will be made in this Parliament about a replacement for Trident. The Government should, as the Conservatives did in the 1970s when Trident was being discussed, publish papers stating the facts and the arguments for and against, so that we can have an informed debate.
	The hon. Member for Telford and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire both spoke of the increasing detachment of the armed forces from local communities. That has an impact on recruitment, about which many Members have spoken, so I again question the breaking of local links through the provision of mega-regiments rather than regiments with local ties such as county regiments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) spoke at length about falling recruitment and retention in the Territorial Army. In a stunning indictment of recent Government policy, she described the TA as being in jeopardy. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) added to that from his great past experience of the TA. He made a devastating attack on the Government, comparing the armed forces with an elastic band stretched to breaking point.
	I am sorry to praise the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith), because I know that he will not appreciate it, but he was again a fierce critic of decisions in relation to DARA. He described cuts for cuts' sake and said that the decisions stink of cutting costs. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), a member of the Defence Committee, spoke with great authority on FRES and other procurement problemshardly a tremendous endorsement of Government policy.
	As for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), I, too, liked the conservation part of the report in relation to training errors. He was the only person really to congratulate the Governmenton MOD policy on looking after Salisbury Plain. As a young man lying on Salisbury Plain in the middle of the night, I remember watching badgers through a night sight, and it was great fun[Interruption.] Badger watching has a different meaning in the Conservative party than in the Labour party. He then criticised the Government over the failure to address the threat of MANPADS and the failure to trust the people.
	The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) again criticised the Government over the education of forces children and about the TA. In particular, he asked the interesting question: when will we have the statement on the future Army structure?
	My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) spoke up for Shropshire and discussed Combat Stress, an excellent charity with which I have had dealings. He spoke of the Government letting down his constituents at Donnington and in relation to national security. He spoke without notes, which is very impressive, and I can tell that he has been taking lessons from my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who always speaks without notes, too.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth spoke with great passion, and extremely well, about his TA experience, and particularly about the Government betraying soldiers in both Northern Ireland and Iraq. My hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) spoke from their different military experiences. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East spoke particularly about difficulties of recruitment, procurement failures, Government cuts and policy failures.
	All in all, this has not been a great day to sit on the Treasury Bench

Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that it has been an excellent day; he has not been here for very long.
	What concerns me more than anything elseit also concerns the armed forcesis the attitude of the Labour Government to their loyal soldiers, sailors and airmen. We should not be too surprised at that attitude. We heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attitude to spending money on the armed forces. I want to give the House two examples that illustrate, I regret to say, the contempt in which some members of the Government and the Labour party hold the armed forces. I do not wish to be nice to the Secretary of State, but I exempt him from these criticisms as I know that they do not apply to him. I believe that they do not apply to his Ministers either, although I have not yet heard their views in the same detail as I have heard his. I believe that the Secretary of State is a great friend of the armed forces and it is a pity that he has to implement the cuts that were announced before he took his post.
	While serving as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland during Christmas 1999, Peter Mandelsonas I understand it, a pretty close confidant of the Prime Ministerreferred to members of the Household Division as chinless wonders. At the time, three of the five footguards battalions were on operations in Northern Ireland. I was in a footguards battalion and served in Northern Ireland. If I thought that Uncle Peter, as he is apparently called in the Prime Minister's household, were no longer welcome in No. 10, I would be happier, but I suspect that he remains a close friend and confidant. More recently in 2003, the Deputy Prime Minister insulted our armed forces by saying, All soldiers are boneheads. That rather contrasts with what the Minister of State said about how much he respected our forces. It was an unworthy comment, but I suggest that it is revealing of how many in the Labour party's hierarchy view the armed forces.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Secretary of State mentioned several of the real problems that are dogging the armed forces, including declining recruitment and retention, notwithstanding the fact that, as I understand it, 7 per cent. of the Army is now recruited outside the UK from the Commonwealth. My right hon. and learned Friend and several other hon. Friends referred to the increasing haemorrhage of soldiers from the Territorial Army. Until the present Government came to office, such soldiers had never been used on operations outside general war to the extent that they have been in Iraq.
	I would like to highlight other issues that are making the Army, and the armed forces in general, deeply suspicious of the Government. As I said on Monday, I fear that they are undermining the loyalty and trust that should exist both ways between our armed forces personnel and their political commanders. When he sums up, will the Minister comment on the following extract from an article in Monday's The Daily Telegraph? I know that he probably does not read that newspaper, but if it were a quote from The Guardian[Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State reads The Daily Telegraph. The article states:
	A week after the trial ended, Brig. Robert Aitken, the director of Army personnel strategy and answerable directly to Gen. Jackson, wrote to selected commanders.
	'How did our officers perform?', he asked. 'Was abuse of Iraqi civilians widespread?'
	The brigadier said he was not 'conducting a witch-hunt' but added: 'I do need some evidence.'
	In a reference to press reports, he wrote: 'The media at the moment is giving our military discipline system a bit of a hammering and is also asking . . . whether our officers behaved to the highest standards.'
	I do not know him andI hasten to add for the Secretary of State's benefitI am not criticising him one way or the other, but we require an answer about whether that is true. Was there a policy of investigating officers to get them to face a court martial? I have already raised earlier today the question of the Attorney-General's political involvement in decisions. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that the Government did not encourage that particular policy.
	As we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, these courts martial are harming the morale of people who, whether they be soldiers or their commanders, are operating in incredibly difficult circumstances. I can assure the House that all soldiers understand that if they wilfully abuse Iraqis or others, or if they wilfully misbehave or commit criminal acts, they should expect to be punished. I hope, however, that everyone understands that sitting in a nice office in Whitehall or, indeed, in the Chamber of the House of Commons and talking about these matters is very different from being on the streets of Iraq, where temperatures may be as high as 58o C and troops may be wearing heavy body armour, sweating like the proverbial, knowing that some people around them have weapons and are trying to kill them.
	My second point leads on directly from that and relates to the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth mentioned. Will the Minister tell me what representations he has received from senior officers about that shameful Bill? Can he confirm that it is the case that British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland, who were obeying orders from senior officers directed by the Government at the time, may be prosecuted under the Bill on exactly the same conditions as the terrorists that they were trying to deter? Would the soldiers and SAS personnel involved in the Loughgall incident in 1987 be caught by this Bill? The Minister will recall that the European Court of Justiceit might have been the European Court of Human Rights; he will put me rightfound that the terrorists involved in that incident were unlawfully killed, and that as a result, compensation was paid to their relations.
	I would be very grateful if the Minister commented on those issues. I can assure him that soldiers will not wish to engage the enemythe primary purpose of infantrymen and most other soldiersif they are likely to face prosecution. It cannot be right to treat public servants acting under orders in the same way as terrorists committing crimes in this country. These are the issues that are harming the armed forces long-term morale. As I said, I do not believe that the Secretary of State is party to them, so let him stand up and say what he thinks about them. It is important that he do so.
	Many other issues have been raised and I shall not cover them in detail, but the cut in the number of infantry battalions as part of the Army restructuring is, to put it mildly, perverse, coming as it does when the Army is so busy around the world. It cannot make sense to reduce the number of infantry battalions by four. Perhaps the Minister will tell us where the troops for Afghanistan will come from, because it is not immediately apparent. In view of the question from the hon. Member for Colchester, he might also tell us when the disbandments and reorganisation will take place. I understand that they have been put off because our troops are so busy. On infantry reorganisation, is the Minister absolutely sure that ending the arms plot will make the infantry operate better and be more usable?
	Has the Minister considered the following important point, which several soldiers have raised with me? Currently, our battalions have experience in depth. They contain people who have served in armoured infantry in Germany and Iraq, and who have done basic foot-soldiering and peacekeeping in Northern Ireland. Such people have the gamut of experience, but given the direction in which this reorganisation is going, we risk taking away that depth of experience and the military expertise that we currently enjoy. My concern is that we will get a less flexible, less usable infantry under this reorganisation.
	I come briefly to the Royal Navy. In discussing how the Government have been treating our armed forces, it needs to be pointed out that we are reducing the frigate and destroyer fleet from 32 to 25. In fact, in a couple of years' time there will be even fewer. Some ships have yet to come into fleet service. This is a dire situation. The Chief of the Naval Staff and First Sea Lord, Sir Alan West, said that he believes that 30 is the minimum number that we can make do with.
	In many ways, today is a rather sad day. This debate has been largely interesting and well-attendedcertainly by Conservative Members, if not Labour Membersbut it has raised more questions than it has answered. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them when he replies.

Don Touhig: This has been an important and valuable debate, and every Member's contribution has helped in that regard. I apologise at the outset for the absence of the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence. As he advised the Opposition parties, he has had to leave London.
	As a force for good across the world, our armed forces are second to none. Our service personnel do a tremendous job in often unimaginable circumstances and they deserve the very best support that we can give them. My agendamy mission as a Minister in the Ministry of Defenceis simple. It is to demonstrate to the whole defence family that we value them: our cadets, reserves and serving personnel, and their families, and our veterans.
	This year more than ever we have shown how we value the contribution made by those who defended our freedoms in the darkest days of the previous century. Our men and women become veterans the moment that they leave the armed forces, and I believe that it is very important to remind the public of what they have done for us, while at the same time making sure that they know that we are there to give help, advice and support for the rest of their lives.
	I am delighted that the armed forces veterans badge has been so well received, and we are very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to announce that eligibility is being extended to cover those who served between the wars and up to 1954.
	I am also pleased that the Ministry of Defence makes a significant contribution to the Government's youth agenda. I should like to pay personal tribute to all the adult volunteers who give so much of their time to the cadet forces. It is a direct result of their efforts that the cadet movement is one of Britain's largest youth organisations with a membership in excess of 130,000.
	For the commitment and personal sacrifices that our service people make, they deserve the confidence and peace of mind that comes from knowing that their families are cared for, particularly when they are away on operations. Members of the armed forces draw heavily on the support that they get from their families, supporters and loved ones. There is no question in my mind that we must continue to deliver practical improvements to the things that make people feel good about the extra mile that we often ask them to go.
	They expectand I agree with themthat we should and will deliver good-quality accommodation, a fair allowances package and a robust and responsive welfare network. Over the past three financial years, we have upgraded 5,452 married quarters, at a cost of 120 million. Over the next four years, we intend to upgrade a further 3,300. I pay tribute to the service families associations for the full part that they play in helping us to devise our policies.
	It is appropriate that I say something about the reserves and the regular forces together, because together is exactly how they serve in our modern forces. On the numbers in the reserves, we have witnessed Opposition Members shed a quantity of crocodile tears[Interruption.] We should not forget that, in their years in power, they cut the reserve forces by 20,000. They do not like to be reminded, but there is an old saying, By their actions ye shall know them.
	Our reserves play a vital role in the success of operations. The strategic defence review envisaged more capable reserves, more closely integrated with the regular forces. I also pay tribute to the employers who give reserves time to serve. That is of tremendous value and the country owes them a great debt.
	In the past few days, and in this debate, we have heard a great deal from Opposition Members about the military justice system. The Armed Forces Bill will be presented to Parliament later this month, with a Second Reading possible in December. It will give us an opportunity to streamline and modernise our system of military justice and I suspect that it will provoke much discussion in this House.
	In this debate, as in others, a great deal of outrage has been generated by some Opposition Members. They produce a tremendous amount of heat but not a lot of light on this subject. Our armed forces are the very first to say that they should act within the law. Where there are questions about the conduct of individuals, those individuals should be properly investigated and dealt with. That is a proud tradition of the British forces, and one that this Parliament upholds.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday:
	Any wrongdoing that ever occurs comes . . . from a very small minoritytotally unrepresentative of the broad mass of the British armed forces.[Official Report, 16 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 965.]
	I believe that all of us in the Chamber would endorse that.

Don Touhig: I am making a number of points, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I shall come to that in my own time.
	It is time to set the record straight on current and recent prosecutions. Through ignorance or malice, or because certain of them seem to get things wrong, Opposition Members are damaging the morale of our armed forces by the way that they treat this issue.
	I am mindful of the hon. Member for Blaby (Robathan). His attack on the Chief of the General Staff is a disgrace and a shame he will bear for a long time. I respect the hon. Gentleman as a former serving soldier and he knows that it is the convention in this country that serving officers do not engage in politics. I urge him now to help save his reputation and withdraw the slur on the good name of General Sir Mike Jackson. No less offensive were the allegations of political interference, which were as incoherent as they were intemperate. Contrary to the allegations that have been made, there is absolutely no political involvement in decisions of the independent Army prosecution authority.
	Sometimes I wonder exactly what the Opposition want. Are they saying that there should be political interference and that Ministers should intervene to stop prosecutions? Alternatively, are they saying that British troops should be above the law? I am sure that they are not doing so, but that is the impression that they seem to give.

Don Touhig: As I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the responsibility of the Attorney-General comes into play after the Army prosecution authority believes that there is a matter to be prosecuted. That is how it happens and how it has been happening. We need a robust system of military justice through which allegations are investigated and, if appropriate, wrongdoers brought to court. That is what the Government want.
	Let me respond to the comments made by hon. Members. First, I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). We wish him well in his retirement. He has made a considerable contribution as a Member of the House, an Opposition spokesman and a Minister. I endorse warmly the comments that have been made on both sides of House at his last appearance at the Dispatch Box.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman alleged that the Government were responsible for cutting the defence budget. When his party was in power, defence spending[Hon. Members: Come on.] It is funny how Conservative Members do not want to hear these things. The Conservative Government cut defence spending by 15 per cent., and that was after the cold war. This Government are increasing defence spending by 7.5 per cent.that is the difference.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to complain about regiments and various cuts to forces. Let us not forget that the Conservative Government merged several regiments. They also reduced numbers in the Navy. The number of submarines fell from 18 to 10 and the number of frigates from 22 to 19. The number of Navy personnel was cut from 58,000 to 45,000. During the Tory Government of 1992 to 1997, the number of RAF squadrons fell from 55 to 47, which was a reduction of 15 per cent. The Conservatives have nothing to teach anyone about how to handle the armed forces.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised the Government's procurement record, but in 1997the year that the Conservatives left officethe National Audit Office found that the top 25 defence procurement projects in which the Conservative Government were involved were 3 billion over the original costs and would be delivered three years late. That was the Conservatives' record in Government.
	I was especially worried that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the armed forces were under a legal siege. That is rubbish. There have been 80,000 troop deployments in Iraq since we have been there, but in that time, there have been 184 investigations, which includes investigations of road traffic incidents. Of those investigations, one is ongoing, three have been dealt with by a commanding officer, five have been passed to the Army prosecuting authority, five are due for trial and 164 are closed. Five trials have been held and one case is now with the chain of command. There is no siege on our forces as far as the legal system is concerned.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said that he believed that there should be an open debate on defence. He is right, but we have five defence debates a yearthis is one of themso we have a fairly open debate on defence.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) made several points about nuclear policy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his views on that clear during Defence questions this week, so I have nothing to add to what he said.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the publication of the tri-service Bill. As I said, we hope to publish it at the end of the month and hold the Second Reading debate at the end of December. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the Blake report earlier, so I do not think that I can add anything else to that.
	I will take note of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised about Qinetiq. I will go through them thoroughly and, if necessary, write to him. I will place a copy of any correspondence in the Library.
	I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) for his hard work on behalf of his constituents. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has been trying to intervene for some timehe must forgive me but I cannot give way at this timeand I know that he shares my hon. Friend's concerns about the proposed job losses at Donnington. All is not dark there and I hope that both Members will take part in the meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I cannot answer the question about the rail freight depot but to assist my hon. Friend I will ensure that it is passed on to my appropriate ministerial colleague.
	The Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), has an important role. His Committee scrutinises on our behalf what we do day-to-day in the Ministry of Defence. I pay tribute to him and his Committee for their hard work. He mentioned a debate about Trident. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reads Hansard tomorrow he will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and if there is a wide-ranging debate I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will welcome it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the issue of nuclear policy. I think I covered that point in my earlier remarks.
	The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) expressed concern about TA recruitment. I certainly do not dismiss the points she raised. Of course, we are engaged in a battle in recruiting people to our forces. That is a fact and we do not deny it. However, she might like to hear some remarks made by soldiers themselves, and I shall read out a couple of them. The first is:
	I do not believe that anyone joins either the reserve or the regular forces without some hope of seeing operations at some time during their service.
	The second is:
	One ought not to be in the Territorial Army if one does not accept or even welcome the chance of being called up.[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 24 March 2005, Vol. 419, c. 2512.]
	Those statements were made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
	I know of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) about DARA St. Athan. He has been campaigning about that for several years. As he knows, consultations are under way and I have no doubt that he will take part. I am encouraged by a south Wales newspaper headline, quoting my hon. Friend who said:
	It's not all doom and gloom over St. Athan.
	It is not, and I have no doubt that he will continue to ensure that he represents the interests of his colleagues and constituents in the forthcoming discussions.
	I did not agree with many of the things that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, but his contribution was thoughtful and lucid. Such contributions are important in defence debates. It was a good House of Commons speech, which considered the whole ambit of defence. I thank him for the main thrust of his remarks, although I disagreed with some of his conclusions. It was an excellent contribution to our debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) made a similar contribution and I certainly welcome his comments.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) mentioned the tri-service Bill. Perhaps he will serve on the Committee; if so, he will bring much wisdom and knowledge to our deliberations when we deal with the Bill, which already has several hundred clausesand we have not finished yet.
	I shall look into the points raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) about accommodation and education. If necessary, I shall write to him.
	The hon. Member for The Wrekin expressed concern about Donnington. I hope that he will be able to take part in the discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. That would certainly be helpful. He accused us of adopting privatisation, but the James review stated that, if the Conservatives had won the last election, they would have sold or privatised the Warship Support Agency, ABRO, DARA, the Met Office and the UK Hydrographic Office.

Louise Ellman: I thank Mr. Speaker for selecting the case of my constituent, Michael Shields, for debate today. I bring Michael Shields's situation to the attention of the House because I am convinced that there is a grave danger that a gross injustice has taken place and that an innocent 19-year-old young man is languishing in a Bulgarian jail, serving a 15-year sentence for a crime that he did not commit and to which another man has confessed.
	The solution lies in the Bulgarian judicial system, but there is a vital role for our Government to play. Michael Shields, with others, travelled to the Crystal hotel in the Golden Sands resort of Varna, Bulgaria on 23 May 2005. From there, he moved to Istanbul to watch Liverpool beat AC Milan in the European championship final on 25 May. He then returned to Varna. On 30 May, at approximately 5.30 am, in the vicinity of the Big Ben fast food caf, barman Martin Georgiev was seriously assaulted. He was punched to the ground and then kicked. His assailant proceeded to drop a large rock- like stone on to his head. Only immediate surgery saved Martin Georgiev's life.
	Michael Shields was taken from his hotel room, where he was sleeping. After an investigation, he was later arrested and charged with attempted murder. He received a 15-year sentence in the Varna court on 26 July 2005, and was ordered to pay compensation of 200,000 Bulgarian leva in addition. Two others received non-custodial sentences. Michael has always been adamant that he was asleep in his hotel room at the time the attack took place, and produced witnesses to testify to that fact.
	On 28 July, Graham Sankey, who had been questioned but then released by the Bulgarian police before he returned to Liverpool, confessed to the crime. In a statement issued through his solicitor he stated:
	an innocent man has received blame for what I did.
	To this day, Graham Sankey has not been questioned about his confession. The case is under Bulgarian jurisdiction and only the Bulgarians can initiate such a process.
	I have discussed the matter with Merseyside police, who are willing to investigate. They can do so, however, only at the request of the Bulgarian authorities. No such request has been made. Michael's appeal, which was heard on 14 October, confirmed both the guilty verdict and the 15-year sentence. Michael's legal team is now considering an appeal to the Sofia court. If that does not succeed, Michael's case may be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which could order a retrial.
	Today, I ask our Ministers to urge the Bulgarian authorities to order an inquiry or a retrial into this highly disturbing case, and I do so for three major reasons: first because of serious concerns about the initial trial, including the pre-trial phase; secondly, because of the failure to question Graham Sankey following his confession to the crime; and, thirdly, because of the significant evidence submitted by a new witness. I should like to indicate the major areas of concern in those three spheres, although I stress that this is not an exhaustive list.
	First, I refer to the trial and pre-trial phase. Stephen Jacobi, the eminent international human rights lawyer who is director of Fair Trials Abroad, witnessed part of the initial trial. He reports serious shortcomings, stating that the way in which identification was authenticated was quite appalling. In the absence of forensic evidencea major deficiency in itselfthis is greatly disturbing. Guilt was determined solely on the basis of witness identification. Witnesses were able to resile from their police statements that they could not remember details of the defendants' faces. Dock identification was permitted, as though it was of real evidential worth, a practice that Stephen Jacobi reports was abandoned in the United Kingdom 50 years ago.
	Evidence on how the blow to Martin Georgiev was struck was divided. All those in the barclose colleagues of the victimadmitted that they did not see the beginning of the action, but stated that the stone was clutched to the assailant's chest and dropped from there. Those who saw the whole of the attack from outside could identify Michael Shields only from seeing him in the dock, and they said that the stone was brought down from above the assailant's head.
	The court considered a highly judgmental document from the prison governor, who gave a prejudicial interpretation of Michael's motives in wishing to have his hair cut. The defence could not cross-examine the governor on that. Even before the trial began, prejudiced pre-trial publicity and the flawed identity parade gave cause for concern.
	The second reason I seek an inquiry or a retrial is the bizarre situation of Graham Sankey. The Bulgarians have not questioned Graham Sankey since his confession to the crime, and neither have they asked the British police to do so, although it is within their remit to make that request. This raises major questions. The Bulgarian Ministry of Justice issued a summons for Graham Sankey and four others to attend court before the confession was made. So before the confession was made the Bulgarians did want Graham Sankey to come to court for questioning. After the confession was made, they did not want to talk to him, nor did they want anyone else to do so.
	The request that the Bulgarian authorities made for Graham Sankey to attend court before he made any confession was received by the Home Office on 11 July, but was not served by the UK central authority because insufficient time was given before the court hearing on 21 and 22 July. The normal period of notice required is six weeks. Yet, inconsistently, the Bulgarian courts rejected Michael Shield's defence request for an adjournment of the appeal hearing in October so that Graham Sankey could be questioned after he had made his confession. I understand that that refusal, and indeed inconsistency, could be material to a successful hearing in the European Court of Human Rights.
	The third reason for an inquiry or retrial is because a new witness, Mr. A, has recently come forward and submitted a notarised and legalised statement. He was an eye witness to the incident. He does not know either Michael Shields or Graham Sankey. He reports that the man who dropped the stone on Martin Georgiev's head was short and dark. He is certain that it was not the fair-haired Michael Shields.
	When Mr. A returned to the Big Ben bar the morning after the incident, he spoke to a bar worker who had witnessed the attack. The bar worker referred to the assailant as
	a fat lad with black hair,
	and stated that this could be corroborated by around 10 people. Mr. A assumed that those witnesses would point out that Michael Shields, who is fair, was the wrong man. That is why he did not come forward as a witness at that time.
	However, those in the bar who witnessed who carried out this offence did not speak out. At the time of the attack, they saw a dark-haired man commit the offence. In court, they identified the fair-haired Michael Shields. Was this indeed a change of testimony, or was it about selecting witnesses to bolster the prosecution's case? When Mr. A later read about Graham Sankey's confession, he assumed that it would be accepted. That did not happen, which is why he has now come forward. Mr. A is ready to travel to Bulgaria to testify.
	At this stage, neither Graham Sankey nor the new witness has been questioned about their statements. That means that no Bulgarian court has considered all the available evidence.
	This is a critical time for Bulgaria. On 25 October, the European Commission published its enhanced monitoring assessment on whether Bulgaria should be permitted to join the European Union as planned in January 2007. I note that two of the five areas of concern identified by the Commission are justice and home affairs, with specific reference to the pre-trial phase. That is highly relevant to Michael Shields's situation for the reasons that I have set out.
	I ask the Government to object to Bulgaria's accession to the European Union. There are good grounds for doing so. The deep disquiet over the way Michael Shields's trial has been conducted relates to the very areas of concern identified by the Commission.
	This case concerns the life of a young man and that of his devastated family. It is about a potential gross injustice. The Shields family are strong and united. They have firm support in Liverpool, in the country and in Europe, where Arlene McCarthy, the Member of the European Parliament for the North West, is campaigning on Michael's behalf. The Shields family's campaign will continue until justice is done and I shall stand with them. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for meeting the Shields family when I brought them to the Foreign Office in September.

Louise Ellman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I accept his support, because the case that I am making is indeed for a retrial.
	I thank the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the assistance that they and their staff have given following the meeting in the Foreign Office and, indeed, before that. It has taken many forms and it is much appreciated, but more needs to be done as we address the complexities of a potential miscarriage of justice involving a British citizen imprisoned under another jurisdiction. I recognise that Ministers cannot interfere in the Bulgarian judicial process, but I ask them to exert their influence on the Bulgarian authorities and to urge them to conduct an inquiry, or to order a retrial, on what happened to Michael Shields. That influence is considerable and I have suggested how it might be exerted. It is a matter of justice.

Douglas Alexander: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on securing a debate on the case of Michael Shields, who, as she has reminded us, has been detained in Bulgaria since May. I welcome the opportunity to set out our position clearly in relation to that case. I pay tribute to the tireless efforts that she has made and continues to make on behalf of Michael and the Shields family.
	Before concentrating on the specifics of the case, it is worth noting the close ties that the United Kingdom has with Bulgaria, which is soon to be a fellow member of the European Union. Every year, 200,000 British visitors visit Bulgaria, enjoying the Black sea coastal resorts and the country's rich cultural heritage. The majority of those visits are trouble-free for British visitors and it is important to recognise that the arrest of British nationals remains, I am thankful to say, a rare occurrence. The number of visitors is also set to rise with the increasing popularity of package holidays to the Bulgarian coastal resorts in summer and to the ski resorts in winter.
	My hon. Friend spoke about the background of Mr. Shields's case and the events surrounding the serious injury sustained by Martin Georgiev, who will always bear the scars from this incident. I sympathise with the Shields family and will ensure that we continue to do all that we properly can to assist them.
	Our consular staff were informed on 30 May of the arrest of Michael Shields and three other British nationals, Graham Sankey, Bradley Thompson and Anthony Wilson, following a stone-throwing incident in the Golden Sands resort in Varna, Bulgaria, in which a Bulgarian national was seriously injured. Our consular staff visited the detainees at the arrest ward of the investigation centre in Varna on 31 May. None of the detainees complained about their treatment by the Bulgarian authorities. If they had done so, we would have raised those concerns immediately with the local authorities. Since their arrest, our staff have been present at key subsequent court appearances.
	As my hon. Friend is aware, the result of Mr. Shields's appeal was released on 9 November. The judges ruled that Mr. Shields's conviction and sentence for attempted murder and hooliganism should stand, but agreed to a reduction of the civil claim amount to 120,000 leva. I understand how disappointing this must be for Mr. Shields and his family. There remains the possibility of appeal to the Cassation Court and I understand that Mr. Shields, his family and his legal team are discussing appealing to that court. My hon. Friend will understandindeed, she confirmed as much this eveningthat Ministers cannot interfere in the legal process of another sovereign country.
	My hon. Friend asked what the Foreign Office can do to persuade the Bulgarian authorities to interview Mr. Sankey and to examine the evidence of a new witness. I understand that, prior to his appeal, Mr. Shields's legal team lodged a separate application to the court which requested that the court call Graham Sankey as a witness. The Appeal Court judge dismissed that request, stating that Mr. Sankey had already been removed from the list of witnesses, with the agreement of the defence. Mr. Sankey's confession was raised at the original trial, but was considered insufficient to create doubts with the court about Mr. Shields's guilt. I understand that the court questioned the confession's relevance and credibility. As my hon. Friend is aware, we are unable to interfere in the judicial processes of other countries, just as other countries are unable to interfere in our judicial processes. We have been advised by the Bulgarian authorities that new evidence will be examined only if the Cassation Court rules that the case should be returned to the Court of First Instance. That is a matter for Mr. Shields's legal team to pursue.
	While we cannot interfere in the legal process, I assure my hon. Friend that we remain committed to doing all that we properly can to ensure for Mr Shields's welfare. Consular staff have assisted the Shields family with their visits on numerous occasions. We have maintained close contact with the family whenever they have been in Bulgaria and our staff have provided them with extensive consular support.
	The Shields family have raised concerns over Michael's health and welfare. Our consul visited Mr. Shields on 10 November to discuss those concerns, and Mr. Shields said that he did not require any medical assistance. We will, of course, continue to monitor Mr. Shields's welfare, raising his concerns with the relevant authorities where necessary.
	As I hope my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I made clear at our meeting with my hon. Friend and the Shields family on 13 September, we take Mr. Shields's case very seriously and we are committed to providing him with all appropriate consular assistance. Since that meeting, my right hon. Friend and I have both raised Mr. Shields's case with, respectively, the Bulgarian Foreign Minister and the Europe Minister.
	I appreciate that this is a difficult and distressing time for the Shields family. In only a few days time, we will have a further opportunity to discuss the accession to the European Union of Romania and Bulgaria, and that will no doubt afford a further opportunity for discussion of this matter. However, my hon. Friend should be assured that we will continue to take a close interest in Mr. Shields and will continue to do all that we properly can to assist the Shields family at this difficult and distressing time. I am aware that we have already had one useful and constructive meeting on the subject in the Foreign Office and, in the light of the ongoing discussions my hon. Friend and I have had, I would be willing to consider a further meeting if that would be of assistance to her, as the elected representative, or to the Shields family, given what a difficult and distressing time this must be for them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Six o'clock.